True or False: In a perfect world we'd allcreate html clickable wireframes after the static ones havebeen done

31 Aug 2007 - 11:22am
6 years ago
5 replies
650 reads
Charles Zicari
2007

Alternatively, whenever anyone posts a question where the answer is so
clearly "It depends," the original poster has to donate $10 to IxDA.

Charlie Zicari
Manager - Information Architecture
Organic, Inc
threeminds.organic.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com [mailto:discuss-
> bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of W Evans
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:06 PM
> To: Stew Dean
> Cc: IxDA List
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd
> allcreate html clickable wireframes after the static ones havebeen
done
>
> Idea to make money: Anytime one of us types "It Depends" we have to
donate
> $10 to IxDA :-)
>
>
>
> On 8/31/07, Stew Dean <stewdean at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 31/08/2007, Akanowicz Ron <ron at softerwareconsulting.com> wrote:
> > > Same format at (static) wireframes, but done in html with all
> > > clickable navigation and intra-copy links leading to the
appropriate
> > > pages.
> >
> > Having done all different kinds of approaches, including this one,
it
> > goes back to the old favourite of 'it depends'.
> >
> > I have created a navigatable version of a site with copy and release
> > notes using Dreamweaver but only because we where working as close
> > team and with a limited time frame. I wouldnt say it had that many
> > advantages.
> >
> > I have also created wireframe and sitemaps using flash and made them
> > clickable (something I first did about 6 years ago) - great if
you're
> > again working in a close team and you are the only IA.
> >
> > Both methods are good if you have the skills to throw around flash
or
> > dreamweaver (mine have got rusty over the years).
> >
> > Ultimately often a diagram is better than even a 'click through'
> > prototype as it communicates all the paths in the application rather
> > than have to have them discovered, after all one of the first things
I
> > have done of the years when redesigning a site is to do an 'asis'
> > sitemap of the service so I know how it works, a clickable set of
> > wireframes without the right diagrams, explainations and overview
> > woudl be as useful as a having the final site, it woudl have to be
> > pulled apart again by anyone implimenting it to understand how it
> > works.
> >
> > --
> > Stewart Dean
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> > To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> > List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> > List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> > Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> > Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> > Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~ we
>
> -------------------------------------
> n: will evans
> t: user experience architect
> e: wkevans4 at gmail.com
>
> -------------------------------------
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise
protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this
email or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient,
or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please
immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at (415) 581-5552 or
by e-mailing us at helpdesk at organic.com.

Comments

1 Oct 2007 - 10:34am
russwilson
2005

> and no one will give IxDs the 3-6 months to
> learn xaml/wpf + c# necessary to do the prototypes themself.

Why do you have to prototype in the language it will be built in? I'm

I've had the "agile" argument thrown at me regarding this. (no throw-away
work). True, not an accurate interpretation on their part, but it has
happened more than once...

1 Oct 2007 - 10:50am
russwilson
2005

If one lacks the skills to do so, either get back to school and learn
them, grab some books and dive in on, or get a bigger budget to hire
people who can help them build prototypes. Whichever path one takes,
I don't think one can ever underestimate the value and importance of
building functioning prototypes. Ever.

-----------

I think we are slowly transforming the way software is created. I would
guess that roughly 99% of software today is still created by taking some
requirements, throwing them at a dev team, iterate some builds and change
a few things, and then release. No design team. This is changing as users
expectations are increased by software products that raise the bar through
appropriate design processes. But at the moment, it is still very difficult
to insert a design phase that includes the development of interactive prototypes
and testing of those prototypes, as well as the resources to accomplish that.

(Much easier for consultants and agencies who are contracted to create something
and can follow whatever process they desire)

1 Oct 2007 - 6:40pm
dmitryn
2004

Russell,

Did this argument come from the development team? I'm guessing not,
because I would seriously question the competence of a developer who
demands that a prototype be made reusable on the premise of "no
throw-away work".

Prototyping tools usually yield code that flagrantly violates basic
software engineering principles like separation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc. For that reason, in my experience, prototypes are
rarely worth the effort of converting into production code.

Even more importantly, any effort a designer puts into making a
prototype production-worthy is likely to be effort not spent on
refining and testing the actual design.

The project I'm currently working on is an agile one, and I'm building
a prototype for it with the same platform and language (Eclipse
RCP/Java) used in the production application. However, the same
properties that make the prototype easily amenable to changes make it
completely worthless for code reuse purposes. And that's just the way
I like it. :)

Dmitry

On 10/1/07, Wilson, Russell <Russell.Wilson at netqos.com> wrote:
> > and no one will give IxDs the 3-6 months to
> > learn xaml/wpf + c# necessary to do the prototypes themself.
>
> I've had the "agile" argument thrown at me regarding this. (no throw-away
> work). True, not an accurate interpretation on their part, but it has
> happened more than once...
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

1 Oct 2007 - 8:48pm
russwilson
2005

Unfortunately, yes, in both cases it came from developers in the midst
of embracing Agile as their new life manifesto! :-)

"No throw away work" apparently has been written down somewhere and
just as we face the dreaded "reduce the number of clicks" commandment, I
fear we may have to deal with yet another quickly-interpreted, not completely
understood, taken word-for-word in the absence of any other logical criteria mantra...

whew...

:-)

________________________________________
From: Dmitry Nekrasovski [mail.dmitry at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:40 PM
To: Wilson, Russell
Cc: Dan Saffer; IxDA Discuss
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd allcreate html clickable wireframes after the static ones havebeen done

Russell,

Did this argument come from the development team? I'm guessing not,
because I would seriously question the competence of a developer who
demands that a prototype be made reusable on the premise of "no
throw-away work".

Prototyping tools usually yield code that flagrantly violates basic
software engineering principles like separation of concerns,
encapsulation, etc. For that reason, in my experience, prototypes are
rarely worth the effort of converting into production code.

Even more importantly, any effort a designer puts into making a
prototype production-worthy is likely to be effort not spent on
refining and testing the actual design.

The project I'm currently working on is an agile one, and I'm building
a prototype for it with the same platform and language (Eclipse
RCP/Java) used in the production application. However, the same
properties that make the prototype easily amenable to changes make it
completely worthless for code reuse purposes. And that's just the way
I like it. :)

Dmitry

On 10/1/07, Wilson, Russell <Russell.Wilson at netqos.com> wrote:
> > and no one will give IxDs the 3-6 months to
> > learn xaml/wpf + c# necessary to do the prototypes themself.
>
> I've had the "agile" argument thrown at me regarding this. (no throw-away
> work). True, not an accurate interpretation on their part, but it has
> happened more than once...
> ________________________________________________________________
> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org
> List Guidelines ............ http://beta.ixda.org/guidelines
> List Help .................. http://beta.ixda.org/help
> Unsubscribe ................ http://beta.ixda.org/unsubscribe
> Questions .................. list at ixda.org
> Home ....................... http://beta.ixda.org
>

1 Oct 2007 - 9:17pm
SemanticWill
2007

This must be a particular interpretation of Agile by the developers you have
worked with. There is nothing explicit in either the agile
manifesto<http://agilemanifesto.org/>or principles
behind the Agile Manifesto <http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html> that
speaks about prototypes or throw-away work - that said - there is also
nothing in Agile that talks about users. Nothing. Zilch. It's all about
fast, functional, working software. There is nothing about usable, useful,
beautiful, human-centered software. In fact - a literal reading of the
principles and manifesto would say that feature and function driven design -
not user-centered design.

Perhaps that's why I am going to Larry Constantine's seminar at UI12 about
Agile and UCD <http://www.uie.com/events/uiconf/2007/sessions/constantine/>.
I need to see/hear how those two can work together - because I fear that
Agile could kill UCD in most software development organizations.

--
~ will

IxDA Interaction 08 | Savannah
http://interaction08.ixda.org/
-------------------------------------------------------
will evans
user experience architect
wkevans4 at gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------
On 10/1/07, Wilson, Russell <Russell.Wilson at netqos.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, yes, in both cases it came from developers in the midst
> of embracing Agile as their new life manifesto! :-)
>
> "No throw away work" apparently has been written down somewhere and
> just as we face the dreaded "reduce the number of clicks" commandment, I
> fear we may have to deal with yet another quickly-interpreted, not
> completely
> understood, taken word-for-word in the absence of any other logical
> criteria mantra...
>
> whew...
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Dmitry Nekrasovski [mail.dmitry at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 6:40 PM
> To: Wilson, Russell
> Cc: Dan Saffer; IxDA Discuss
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd
> allcreate html clickable wireframes after the static ones havebeen done
>
> Russell,
>
> Did this argument come from the development team? I'm guessing not,
> because I would seriously question the competence of a developer who
> demands that a prototype be made reusable on the premise of "no
> throw-away work".
>
> Prototyping tools usually yield code that flagrantly violates basic
> software engineering principles like separation of concerns,
> encapsulation, etc. For that reason, in my experience, prototypes are
> rarely worth the effort of converting into production code.
>
> Even more importantly, any effort a designer puts into making a
> prototype production-worthy is likely to be effort not spent on
> refining and testing the actual design.
>
> The project I'm currently working on is an agile one, and I'm building
> a prototype for it with the same platform and language (Eclipse
> RCP/Java) used in the production application. However, the same
> properties that make the prototype easily amenable to changes make it
> completely worthless for code reuse purposes. And that's just the way
> I like it. :)
>
> Dmitry
>
> On 10/1/07, Wilson, Russell <Russell.Wilson at netqos.com> wrote:
> > > and no one will give IxDs the 3-6 months to
> > > learn xaml/wpf + c# necessary to do the prototypes themself.
> >
> > I've had the "agile" argument thrown at me regarding this. (no
> throw-away
> > work). True, not an accurate interpretation on their part, but it has
> > happened more than once...
>
>

Syndicate content Get the feed