Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Showing my ignorance: Don't wireframes show flow only? Like the map view in Dreamweaver? Or is it an actual possible design one creates often in Photoshop, though this article indicated Freehand. Hi Nancy, Think storyboard, only without the graphical elements Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Thanks to all of you who responded to my question about wireframes. I have a better idea now. Nancy Johnson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 5:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards? Showing my ignorance: Don't wireframes show flow only? Like the map view in Dreamweaver? Or is it an actual possible design one creates often in Photoshop, though this article indicated Freehand. Hi Nancy, Think storyboard, only without the graphical elements Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Ian Fenn wrote: My client wanted something to show internal stakeholders so I started doing a few wireframes but suddenly wondered, Why am I doing this? Why don't I just build the website using web standards? A day later I finished a working prototype of the website in question. The client is happy but another producer has been quite vocal with his opinion that the prototype was built too early. From my perspective, a prototype has more value than wireframes. Web standards make development much more rapid, so we can respond quickly to any other needs thrown up before going into production. What do you think? Here's my take. I think wireframes are a great first step in developing a site with a complex user flow. I'll often literally just sketch them on paper. They take no time at all and are very easy to change. Because they are rough, people don't get too attached to them as well, which is a bonus. If I'm creating slightly more polished wireframes I'll do them in Freehand. I've all the widgets and templates created, so I can knock a batch of wireframes up very quickly. I can annotate them myself with instructions or print them out and have people scribble on them with suggestions. All very useful. I can then hand them over to the client and they can sign each one off. This forces the client to understand and take responsibility for each wireframe and the signed off wireframes become part of our project spec. HTML prototypes can be extremely useful as they give you and the client a real understanding of the user flow. It's fine looking through a batch of wireframes, but nothing gives you the feel of a website like, er, a website. However I think you have to be a particularly gifted developer to be able to knock up a half descent HTML template in anything near the time it takes to create one in Freehand (or the graphics package of your choice). Also for the HTML template to be as flexible as it's paper equivalent you really do need some mechanism for adding notes/instructions (like a div that you can toggle on and off) and allowing the client to comment and sign them off. Obviously as they are HTML there is no way you can really include them in your spec. The other big issue is that people get very protective of their 'code'. I could see it being very tempting not to change something on a wireframe because it's a 'hassle' rather than for any strategic reasons. also their is the temptation to try and cut corners and turn your prototype into the real thing. Never a good idea in my book, as, by definition, a prototype is a rough, rushed version of what you actually want to build. My position them would be to always wireframe and to build prototypes when you have the time/budget. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Showing my ignorance: Don't wireframes show flow only? Like the map view in Dreamweaver? Or is it an actual possible design one creates often in Photoshop, though this article indicated Freehand. Nancy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards? Ian Fenn wrote: My client wanted something to show internal stakeholders so I started doing a few wireframes but suddenly wondered, Why am I doing this? Why don't I just build the website using web standards? A day later I finished a working prototype of the website in question. The client is happy but another producer has been quite vocal with his opinion that the prototype was built too early. From my perspective, a prototype has more value than wireframes. Web standards make development much more rapid, so we can respond quickly to any other needs thrown up before going into production. What do you think? Here's my take. I think wireframes are a great first step in developing a site with a complex user flow. I'll often literally just sketch them on paper. They take no time at all and are very easy to change. Because they are rough, people don't get too attached to them as well, which is a bonus. If I'm creating slightly more polished wireframes I'll do them in Freehand. I've all the widgets and templates created, so I can knock a batch of wireframes up very quickly. I can annotate them myself with instructions or print them out and have people scribble on them with suggestions. All very useful. I can then hand them over to the client and they can sign each one off. This forces the client to understand and take responsibility for each wireframe and the signed off wireframes become part of our project spec. HTML prototypes can be extremely useful as they give you and the client a real understanding of the user flow. It's fine looking through a batch of wireframes, but nothing gives you the feel of a website like, er, a website. However I think you have to be a particularly gifted developer to be able to knock up a half descent HTML template in anything near the time it takes to create one in Freehand (or the graphics package of your choice). Also for the HTML template to be as flexible as it's paper equivalent you really do need some mechanism for adding notes/instructions (like a div that you can toggle on and off) and allowing the client to comment and sign them off. Obviously as they are HTML there is no way you can really include them in your spec. The other big issue is that people get very protective of their 'code'. I could see it being very tempting not to change something on a wireframe because it's a 'hassle' rather than for any strategic reasons. also their is the temptation to try and cut corners and turn your prototype into the real thing. Never a good idea in my book, as, by definition, a prototype is a rough, rushed version of what you actually want to build. My position them would be to always wireframe and to build prototypes when you have the time/budget. Andy Budd http://www.message.uk.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Nancy, Wireframe more often is used to refer to outlined page designs. I.e. a very rough idea of what a page design will look like, normally just black outline boxes, no colour, no real text, no nothing :) They are a way to start visualising the design of a page and how all the elements will fit together, but are by no means a final design. HTH Beau // -Original Message- // From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Johnson // Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:37 AM // To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Subject: RE: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards? // // // Showing my ignorance: // // Don't wireframes show flow only? Like the map view in // Dreamweaver? Or is it an actual possible design one creates // often in Photoshop, though this article indicated Freehand. // // Nancy // // -Original Message- // From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd // Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:19 AM // To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Subject: Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards? // // Ian Fenn wrote: // // My client wanted something to show internal stakeholders // so I started // doing a few wireframes but suddenly wondered, Why am I // doing this? // Why don't I just build the website using web standards? // // A day later I finished a working prototype of the website // in question. // // The client is happy but another producer has been quite // vocal with his // // opinion that the prototype was built too early. // // From my perspective, a prototype has more value than // wireframes. Web // standards make development much more rapid, so we can // respond quickly // to any other needs thrown up before going into production. // // What do you think? // // Here's my take. // // I think wireframes are a great first step in developing a // site with a // complex user flow. I'll often literally just sketch them on // paper. They // take no time at all and are very easy to change. Because they are // rough, people don't get too attached to them as well, which // is a bonus. // // If I'm creating slightly more polished wireframes I'll do them in // Freehand. I've all the widgets and templates created, so I // can knock a // batch of wireframes up very quickly. I can annotate them myself with // instructions or print them out and have people scribble on them with // suggestions. All very useful. // // I can then hand them over to the client and they can sign // each one off. // This forces the client to understand and take responsibility // for each // wireframe and the signed off wireframes become part of our project // spec. // // HTML prototypes can be extremely useful as they give you and // the client // a real understanding of the user flow. It's fine looking through a // batch of wireframes, but nothing gives you the feel of a // website like, // er, a website. // // However I think you have to be a particularly gifted developer to be // able to knock up a half descent HTML template in anything // near the time // it takes to create one in Freehand (or the graphics package of your // choice). // // Also for the HTML template to be as flexible as it's paper // equivalent // you really do need some mechanism for adding // notes/instructions (like a // div that you can toggle on and off) and allowing the client // to comment // and sign them off. Obviously as they are HTML there is no // way you can // really include them in your spec. // // The other big issue is that people get very protective of // their 'code'. // I could see it being very tempting not to change something on a // wireframe because it's a 'hassle' rather than for any strategic // reasons. also their is the temptation to try and cut corners // and turn // your prototype into the real thing. Never a good idea in my // book, as, // by definition, a prototype is a rough, rushed version of what you // actually want to build. // // My position them would be to always wireframe and to build // prototypes // when you have the time/budget. // // Andy Budd // // http://www.message.uk.com/ // // ** // The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ // // Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ // Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge // To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 // // See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm // for some hints on posting to the list getting help // ** // // // ** // The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ // // Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ // Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge // To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 // // See http
Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Hi, Perhaps wireframes make more sense if you think of them as blueprints, or perhaps a sketch in the design process. I often use pencil sketches complete with color void of content when laying out a new site. I also use this approach with colored div's with just a text description of intended content, following the advice of Russ Weakley, when laying out a css design. W On Friday, August 6, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Beau Lebens wrote: Nancy, Wireframe more often is used to refer to outlined page designs. I.e. a very rough idea of what a page design will look like, normally just black outline boxes, no colour, no real text, no nothing :) They are a way to start visualising the design of a page and how all the elements will fit together, but are by no means a final design. HTH Beau // -Original Message- // From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy Johnson // Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 3:37 AM // To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Subject: RE: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards? // // // Showing my ignorance: // // Don't wireframes show flow only? Like the map view in // Dreamweaver? Or is it an actual possible design one creates // often in Photoshop, though this article indicated Freehand. // // Nancy // // -Original Message- // From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd // Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:19 AM // To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // Subject: Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards? // // Ian Fenn wrote: // // My client wanted something to show internal stakeholders // so I started // doing a few wireframes but suddenly wondered, Why am I // doing this? // Why don't I just build the website using web standards? // // A day later I finished a working prototype of the website // in question. // // The client is happy but another producer has been quite // vocal with his // // opinion that the prototype was built too early. // // From my perspective, a prototype has more value than // wireframes. Web // standards make development much more rapid, so we can // respond quickly // to any other needs thrown up before going into production. // // What do you think? // // Here's my take. // // I think wireframes are a great first step in developing a // site with a // complex user flow. I'll often literally just sketch them on // paper. They // take no time at all and are very easy to change. Because they are // rough, people don't get too attached to them as well, which // is a bonus. // // If I'm creating slightly more polished wireframes I'll do them in // Freehand. I've all the widgets and templates created, so I // can knock a // batch of wireframes up very quickly. I can annotate them myself with // instructions or print them out and have people scribble on them with // suggestions. All very useful. // // I can then hand them over to the client and they can sign // each one off. // This forces the client to understand and take responsibility // for each // wireframe and the signed off wireframes become part of our project // spec. // // HTML prototypes can be extremely useful as they give you and // the client // a real understanding of the user flow. It's fine looking through a // batch of wireframes, but nothing gives you the feel of a // website like, // er, a website. // // However I think you have to be a particularly gifted developer to be // able to knock up a half descent HTML template in anything // near the time // it takes to create one in Freehand (or the graphics package of your // choice). // // Also for the HTML template to be as flexible as it's paper // equivalent // you really do need some mechanism for adding // notes/instructions (like a // div that you can toggle on and off) and allowing the client // to comment // and sign them off. Obviously as they are HTML there is no // way you can // really include them in your spec. // // The other big issue is that people get very protective of // their 'code'. // I could see it being very tempting not to change something on a // wireframe because it's a 'hassle' rather than for any strategic // reasons. also their is the temptation to try and cut corners // and turn // your prototype into the real thing. Never a good idea in my // book, as, // by definition, a prototype is a rough, rushed version of what you // actually want to build. // // My position them would be to always wireframe and to build // prototypes // when you have the time/budget. // // Andy Budd // // http://www.message.uk.com/ // // ** // The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ // // Proud presenters of Web Essentials 04 http://we04.com/ // Web standards, accessibility, inspiration, knowledge // To be held in Sydney, September 30 and October 1, 2004 // // See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm // for some hints on posting to the list getting help
Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
Pardon my ignorance, but what are 'wireframes'? I prefer building prototypes than hagging over wireframes. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
http://www.iawiki.net/WireFrames -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27 http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav Hugh Todd wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but what are 'wireframes'? I prefer building prototypes than hagging over wireframes. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Are wireframes necessary when using web standards?
I try and move the site away from paper and photoshop into lots of grey boxes using XHTML and CSS as soon as possible. I guess it's somewhere in between a wireframe and prototype. Considering everything is just groups of DIVs with IDs and classes, standards make it really easy to shuffle the boxes around and prototype *LIVE*... I had a client who had some input after my first prototype. Instead of going away re-jigging the whole prototype, I opened up Firefox with the CSS Editor side bar and MADE THE CHANGES ON THE SPOT (with a few tweaks to the mark-up). We achieved so much in one meeting that the client and myself were both amazed. My guess is about 2-3 meetings worth of changes and iterations in less than 2 hours. The client was able to SEE changes and assess them in realtime. If you're quick with basic CSS layout, I can 100% vouch for CSS/XHTML based prototypes/mock-ups/wireframe hybrids. On 06/08/2004, at 4:40 AM, Ian Fenn wrote: Hello, I'm in the process of redesigning a website. My client wanted something to show internal stakeholders so I started doing a few wireframes but suddenly wondered, Why am I doing this? Why don't I just build the website using web standards? A day later I finished a working prototype of the website in question. The client is happy but another producer has been quite vocal with his opinion that the prototype was built too early. From my perspective, a prototype has more value than wireframes. Web standards make development much more rapid, so we can respond quickly to any other needs thrown up before going into production. What do you think? --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *