<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Laura Veprek</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/10039</link>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:30:15 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Laura Veprek</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Kyle,&lt;br /&gt;I think this is a great article. It shows the potential power of using &lt;span class="caps"&gt;PDF&lt;/span&gt; for prototypes. Thank you for posting it!&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;As the others have said, boils down to personal preference and organizational preference whether and how these PDFs are used. For me, as a designer/developer, I am the one who creates the mockups and then gets to code it. I would much rather create a Photoshop mockup, then send it out as a &lt;span class="caps"&gt;PDF&lt;/span&gt; for people to comment on before I spend time coding. It&amp;#8217;s much, much easier to work out major changes, like layout, in Photoshop, especially if you have more than one design to choose from, than to code, and re-code, and re-code&amp;#8230;That would likely just produce messy code. Not to mention that if you use a coded mockup, you&amp;#8217;re still faced with many unusable parts. So why not make a prettier picture? As a last point, if you&amp;#8217;re doing the prototype for a proposal, and not necessarily a guaranteed project, I would say you get more  bang for your buck with a &lt;span class="caps"&gt;PDF&lt;/span&gt; than with a live, coded site.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/pdf-prototypes#content_11028</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/pdf-prototypes#content_11028</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:30:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Laura Veprek</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
