<?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 Mark Kraemer</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/1341</link>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:17:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Mark Kraemer</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Fidelity for prototypes can be roughly measured by 3 attributes: visual detail, functional depth, and technical reuse. The obvious trade-offs are the more realistic any of these attributes becomes, the most cost there is involved. The effort for including visual detail on each page I think is discounted above when you consider the cost of maintaining that consistent style over multiple pages, unless you increase the technical reuse attribute as well (CSS) which in turn provides more cost.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#8217;t think there&amp;#8217;s a single silver bullet / best practice for how to prototype for  every single project. One should consider who the prototype is for (investors? the client&amp;#8217;s business analyst? end users in usability testing? your developers?) Each group will have different needs in each of the 3 attributes. Design your prototype to meet the needs of these interim users and you&amp;#8217;ll find the right balance of cost/value for visual detail, functional depth, and technical reuse.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/real_wireframes#content_3591</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/real_wireframes#content_3591</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:17:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Mark Kraemer</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
