I never on my wildest tangent supposed that a salesperson would go thru and
figure out how to assign fuseactions and blah blah!
I did suppose that perhaps the handoff between wireframes and some initial
structural design might be more fluid.
I'll do my legal statement that what I am thinking about is no longer an
addendum to wireframes but a component of a much larger
application. Wireframes with forthcoming Menu should stay happy and seperate!
My little pipe dream might be forthcoming. When(if) you see it you'll
understand.
DRE
At 05:35 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>You are SO on a tangent! ;-)
>
>Seriously, this suggests that the people who create wireframes would know
>how to architect an application. I think you can see that this is not the
>case. Even if they could, these are two separate functions. While I'm very
>happy that wireframes is getting so popular, I need to point out that it is
>preparatory to a prototype. It does not, in any way, lessen the need for a
>prototype. I like wireframes. I'm in LOVE with prototypes.
>
>I do like your idea about menus, though, or some form of navigation that
>makes it easy to jump from place to place other than walking through the
>workflow. Someone came up with the idea of splitting the .wir file into
>several files to allow for more modular working. Still simple, just smaller.
>Maybe the .wir files could define the navigation? I dunno; here's what I
>propose:
>
>That JqT guy is always coming up with good ideas. (aka "We might have to
>kill him.") I suggest that we grab him before he can get away and make him
>our official wireframe spec guy. Gee, maybe he could use wireframes to
>determine the requirements for wireframes!
>
>John, aside from the duties of a CTO, do you have the time/interest to help
>out with this?
>
>Hal Helms
>== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
>Fusebox" training ==
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DRE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 2:54 PM
>To: Fusebox
>Subject: RE: WireFrame Demo Online
>
>
>Lots of good arguments, I'm a bit on the JQ Tivadar side.
>
>The wireframe tool that Hal came up with is great for getting a client to
>brainstorm, getting direction, figure out what to do, and get the client to
>finalize before actually coding. And thats what it does. A good sales
>person can then hand it over to a developer and most of the questions will
>be answered.
>
>As it is, the only thing I want is menus and perhaps submenus so that you
>can quickly go to the section you want so that you can start figuring
>things out and to give some sort of sense of location. ie. I clicked on
>the about us and now I'm there analyzing actions and behaviors. Hal, this
>is your baby, perhaps a standard for the menu? I've made one and also seen
>several suggestions.
>
>Or, if you want to improve radically, lets realize that its a whole
>different application. Lets draw the line now before we make it too
>complicated and someone has to reinvent wireframes. (I can just see the
>post on a mailing list - "Hey fellas I got this great new application. Its
>called skeletalframewires and it will help us figure out what the client
>wants").
>
>So Lets hear suggestions!
>I suggest that once you're finished wireframing and get the clients
>approval (and money!), you then select which wires get their own folders or
>what fuseacitons they are called. Then you click go and it writes out at
>least the skeleton of a complete website. And if you go nuts! that it
>imports applications into those correct directories and creates a database
>and does all the queries to populate it and that it (If youre really good
>with coldfusion) solves world hunger. All on Wap. (I think it can be done
>though cold fusion might not be the best tool for the hunger part) So. . .
>what else should it do? Version Control?
>
>Am I on a tangent?
>
>DRE
>
>
>
>
>At 12:12 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >Wow, what a well-reasoned argument! That was fun to read. OK, I'm game. How
> >do we make it more powerful without sacrificing the simplicity? Can we
>agree
> >that we want the final product to require no more than, say , 30 minutes of
> >training so that a non-programmer can use it?
> >
> >Hal Helms
> >== See ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with ColdFusion &
> >Fusebox" training ==
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Patrick McElhaney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 10:11 AM
> >To: Fusebox
> >Subject: RE: WireFrame Demo Online
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Further in my role as DA, let me argue that it's important to realize
>that
> > > things tend towards complexity until the point they are no longer
> > > useful, at
> > > which someone looks for something simple until...and the whole
> > > cycle begins
> > > ever anew. The wireframe simply gives the prototype people something to
> > > start from. Its virtue is its simplicity and speed--not power and
> > > extensibility.
> >
> >Thanks Hal. That makes a lot of sense. But still I can't help but wonder:
> >What if we can have all four of those virtues?
> >
> >I think the real problem is that as things get more complex, they tend
> >to get bloated. The learning curve and development time grow with every
> >new feature. But I don't believe it necessarily has to be that way. I
> >think new features can be added transparently, so that the existence of
> >new features won't have any impact on the way we do things. We don't
> >even have to know about them.
> >
> >For example: There are hundreds of elements and attributes in
> >HTML 4.0, but anyone can learn to use it within a few hours. Some of
> >the people on this list have done fantastic things with advanced
> >features such as layers, but we can all still hammer out a functional
> >page in a matter of seconds.
> >
> >What I'm afraid of is I'll be presenting a wireframe to a client and
> >he'll say, "Can you make that a pop-up window?" or "Can you add a
> >marker that shows which pages are have access restrictions?"
> >Simple little things like that could make the wireframe a much more
> >effective communication tool. It would be nice to be able to show
> >up with a toolbox full of little goodies like that. Besides we'd
> >get bonus points for being able to say, "As a matter of fact, I
> >can do that. And.... here it is!"
> >
> >The danger of course is that there would be tremendous opportunity to get
> >carried away with all of the added features. Again, HTML is a perfect
> >example. Remember the first site you ever did? Now, remember the
> >*second* site you did, once you discovered the marvels of the BLINK and
> >FONT tags? As long as we're responsible about how we use the added
> >features, the format should remain very simple, legible, and
> >easy to manipulate in the middle of a meeting.
> >
> >I think we *can* have power and extensibility (and diuturnity!) without
> >sacrificing simplicity and speed.
> >
> >And if I can get you to bite on that idea, I'll let you in on how I
> >think wireframes could be used as a tool during development -- not as
> >some complex Rational-esque code generator but as a simple
> >communication tool.
> >
> >Patrick
> >
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
