<?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 Scott Newcomb</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/1048</link>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:54 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Scott Newcomb</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I think wireframes only work when the content is well-known by the client.  You&amp;#8217;re talking about RIAs.  I understand &amp;#8220;RIA&amp;#8221; is a broad term used very loosely by many in programming and design but when you&amp;#8217;re talking about true clientside RIAs, user experience is everything.  If the client has not had the experience, you can&amp;#8217;t wireframe it for him.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;The client will look at any wireframe and imagine html.  He&amp;#8217;ll imagine every little decision requiring a page to refresh.  He&amp;#8217;ll imagine old, serverside scripting with a little javascript sprinkled on it to make it a little more tolerable.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;ve spent many wasted hours trying to explain clientside Actionscripting to programmers, designers, businessmen IN the internet field and &lt;span class="caps"&gt;THEY&lt;/span&gt; don&amp;#8217;t get it until they experience it.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;For RIAs you must either have previous work or a demo.  The simplist/quickest &lt;span class="caps"&gt;RIA&lt;/span&gt; demo will win over the most complex, well-planned wireframe.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_guided_wire#content_3083</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_guided_wire#content_3083</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Scott Newcomb</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;At any point, for any reason, why spend time working with &amp;#8220;the guided wireframe&amp;#8221; instead of simply building whatever you need to in whatever language you use?  Why create an extra step in the process?  You&amp;#8217;ll still have to go through the demo stage with the client.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;Wireframes have no time advantage.  Anything can be far better represented in the same amount of time with html or Flash.  The wireframe isn&amp;#8217;t necessary unless you&amp;#8217;re trying to create work or don&amp;#8217;t do websites.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_guided_wire#content_3531</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_guided_wire#content_3531</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Scott Newcomb</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Of course if you have problems doing more than wireframes, then don&amp;#8217;t do more.  If your success rate is low with doing anything more than a sketch on papar or wireframes, then stick with wireframes.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;To me, &amp;#8220;just a sketch&amp;#8221; of a house is in no way comparable to a simple 3D model.  Also, building a simple 3D model is far superior for &amp;#8220;arriving at a collective understanding&amp;#8221; and is not &amp;#8220;substantial work.&amp;#8221;&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;Arriving at a better collective understing is also a no-brainger.  Lines on a piece of paper, framework, sketch, whatever, can deliver only a fraction of the information as a simple demo or simple 3D model.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_guided_wire#content_3677</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/the_guided_wire#content_3677</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Scott Newcomb</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
