Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [agile-usability]

Expand Messages
  • Miinalainen, Petteri
    But i think that there is a missing link here applicationwise. I mean, there doesn t exist a program that would use simple design-time elements and allow
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      But i think that there is a missing link here applicationwise. I mean, there doesn't exist a program that would use simple design-time elements and allow compiling a full prototype. It shouldn't be too difficult with different stylesheet/ presentation layer and separated content. It's kinda funny as the industry has been selling this idea to their clients for a long time, but still doesn't utilize the same principles themself. Please, tell me i'm wrong and such application exists?
       
      I've been experimenting with dreamweaver and stylesheets to do this. But in reality, it's faster to draw things on flipcharts than in visio or dreamweaver... and it's faster by multitudes. If the focus is in agility, hand-drawn wireframes are a way to go, imho. Template based tools have their benefits as well - you change referenced once and it's updated everywhere.
       
      And as it's been said here, iteration is the key. I usually do lo-fi first and when there's an agreement on overall IA and main design issues, i merge different lo-fi wireframes into more realistic wireframe or static  prototype.
       
      Petteri Miinalainen
      Technology Services
      Capgemini Finland
      +358 (0)40 8482 009
       
       


      From: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com [mailto:agile-usability@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ash Donaldson
      Sent: 27. syyskuuta 2006 3:28
      To: agile-usability@yahoogroups.com; david broschinsky
      Subject: Re: [agile-usability]

      DaveB wrote:
      >Where are the statistics behind this? As an information
      >architect/designer /usability person, I find it an interesting argument
      >but I am not seeing numbers. Meanwhile if you look at studies like have
      >been done for Snyder's book "Paper Prototyping" , you understand very
      >quickly why detailed wireframes have problems.

      Hell - why not just develop the whole product before testing it? People will REALLY get it then.

      I have to agree with Dave on this one (except I find it much quicker to do wireframes and for good reason). From a theoretical perspective, you'd have to design a much more complex, multi-variate test procedure. From a more practical point of view - who's to say that the alluring picture the graphic designer chose to place in the top-left isn't affecting the scannability (and therefore effectiveness of the design) more than the navigation scheme or content?

      We use wireframes in an iterative fashion to reduce the number of variables that may confound a test - to get the essential bits (e.g. concept, navigation, content, or specific features) right before going to the expense of developing and testing high-fidelity (graphic or interactive) prototypes. A good analogy to this kind of development could be say, Agile versus Waterfall... ;)

      Cheers,

      Ash Donaldson
      Principal
      Produxi Pty Ltd
      Designing better user experiences

      +61 (0)414 55 9996
      ash@produxi. com

      http://www.linkedin ..com/in/ashdonal dson

      This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.