I'm into what John said; "Add behaviour at any stage, even something as simple as links in Visio or Omnigraffle, and you have a prototype."
In a mac-environment, I mostly use Omnigraffle and can actually use it for all phases we're going through. I start by making a flowchart, turning some pages into wireframes & linking it to the flowchart so I can easily make an 'interactive' presentation. It actually shows how it's all structured and specifies some of the page's layout & functionality in the wireframes. To really get a hold on how the application will interact with the user, I create additional wireframes that are linked to eachother. It's a really quick & easy way to visualise and you can re-use what you already made. Surplus, you got a finished document with the whole application-layout. On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:51:46, John Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think of prototypes in trms o the fidelity of representation, > but rather in terms of functionality. Any flat, drawn representation > is a wireframe, whether turned out as a series of grey boxes or as a > luscious photoshopped mock-up. Add behaviour at any stage, even > something as simple as links in Visio or Omnigraffle, and you have a > prototype. > > I think this is the key to he difference in the minds of software > engineers. To them, a prototype is created in code and therefore has > moving parts (even if they lack full functionality). To them, a > drawing is a drawing, a prototype is something you can play with. > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
