I am creating a class syllabus and already have a rudimentary outline in OPML. I imported it into Tinderbox. However, all of the notes are too small in the map view. Is there any way to enlarge all of them? - and the notes nested inside of each note? As it appears to me that I have to enlarge each and every note to be able to read it, I stop right there. I go to the preferences, thinking there is a default i can change, but that does not help.
Also, as I open a note to look at the sub-notes, they are not centered in the screen and are sometimes off the screen. How can I make it so that each time I “look into” the note, the centering and enlarging that i have done remains? My experience is that the centering and enlarging does not “stick.”
You can change the height and width of notes by setting $Height and $Width. A stamp will let you set the dimensions of lots of notes. Select them all, and apply the stamp. Or, select some, apply the stamp, then select some more, and apply it again.
Or, you can change the default value for $Height and $Width of new notes by changing the default for those attributes in the System Attribute pane of the Document inspector.
Tinderbox 6.1.3 is two and a half years out of date, incidentally; you’ll likely be a lot happy with Tinderbox 7.1!
I am like those in the love/hate topic. I have played a few time with Tinderbox, but have never really used it. And so i don’t want to spend any more money on it unless I am committed to using it.
I have an issue related (but not identical to) this one. I have created multiple mind maps in Xmind with multiple branches/nodes including associated notes in Xmind’s notes field. Using Xmind pro, I can export those maps to OPML, and (now) Xmind will export both the map structure and the associated notes into OPML (Xmind hasn’t always had this capability). Next, I drop the OPML file on to the TinderBox canvas and, while it does a beautiful job of capturing both the (now) OPML map structure (what were originally notes), it does not know how to distinguish between the map’s main structure and the notes associated with that structure. In Tinderbox, then, I now have lengthy notes landing in Note title fields when I need them to land in actual note fields. Is there a way for Tinderbox to distinguish between “notes” and note titles when importing an OPML file?
Xmind has always generated ill-formed OPML. Version 8 is no different. Every element is exported as a separate <outline/> entity regardless of whether it is a node name or text belonging to a node. There is no easy fix.
If you want to use Xmind with Tinderbox you’d need to export to .mmap format, open that in iThoughtsX or other mind mapping program that genuinely understands how to create canonical OPML, and re-export from there.
Thank you, Paul. That certainly helps make sense of my experience with XMind to OPML to Tinderbox. By comparison, if I substitute Novamind in place of XMind, and observe Novamind to OPML to Tinderbox, the process works well. Given what your saying, it sounds like Tinderbox reads canonical OPML well, and NovaMind exports canonical OPML. XMind exports a type of OPML not considered canonical. I have long known that XMind’s developers did not understand the need for OPML export, and several of their paid users, myself included, posted explanations and use case scenarios to demonstrate the need. I know that OPML appeared as an export option only “recently”. Perhaps it’s still in its infancy.
I also requested the feature from Xmind and sent them examples. There is nothing difficult about OPML. The “standard”, though informal, is straightforward and easy to follow and implement.