On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Nicholas Iozzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reason two has to do with detailed screen specifications. When you > are designing an application to aid highly trained experts, the > business rules within the system need to be documented and > illustrated in a comprehensive manner. Prototypes will not cut it. > Notes on comps will not cut it.
This has been a great conversation, but this is the point I wanted to make in 'defense' of wireframes. While various levels of fidelity can serve different purposes, the longer term use for most of the wireframes I produce ends up being for the benefit of engineering teams who use them to get a visual and textual reference for what they're building, without being directly concerned with the final design. Depending on the needs of the specific project, application, team and so on, this can be as granular as ID names and I realize I may be exposing my personal practice as wrong for what these things are supposed to be, but given when it comes to documentation I've been thanked more times for making things easier on Engineering, not to mention providing a framework for them to work within and still maintain the UX concerns, I feel confident in the relevance of wireframing, even if that will change over time. All my love, Scott -- "I have mad skills at doing spazzy things." - Janiene West ________________________________________________________________ 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
