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 ******************************************************
