I tried it on my company's website, surroundtech.com. It just produced a parent node and a very wide tree of child pages. Not useful in any way.<p>The website is built using a CMS that's part of our product line, which auto-generates a sitemap.xml file. It also automatically produces a Sitemap page: <a href="https://surroundtech.com/sitemap" rel="nofollow">https://surroundtech.com/sitemap</a>. The two tabs of interest are "Cards", which shows how each page would look when shared via social media links, and "Sitemap Tree" which shows the (non-graphical) page tree.<p>To be fair to the visual tool, our auto-generated xml is just a flat list of urls, and our auto-generated url routing is a flat list of uniquely named pages rather than a /-separated hierarchy. To create our own sitemap page we use the hierarchy that's built into our CMS, which also creates the top-level menu on the site.
Neat design! I made related a tool that crawls a given URL and generates a 3D sitemap (essentially a directed graph): <a href="https://github.com/schedutron/visualnet" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/schedutron/visualnet</a>
Doesn't work at all on my custom-generated sitemap.xml which is valid and accepted by search engines. Worse than that, it displays a bogus diagram rather than an error.
I like this idea a lot.<p>As sibling comments point out, there are kinks to work out in mapping out different website structures, and I would add the suggestion that greater information density could improve the UX.<p>But just think about the collective thousands of hours spent looking for things on websites. Helping a fraction of us find things a bit faster would add up to a big impact.
Import XML sitemap feature is one of many functions, but not major. Octopus.do is UX prototyping tool for creating Visual Sitemap from the very beginning.