<?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 Zephyr Zephyr</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/1378</link>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Zephyr Zephyr</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Your concerns are right on, but I don&amp;#8217;t think I agree with the solution. Like a couple people here commented, it&amp;#8217;s all about managing expectations, both for usability testing and for internal presentations.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;What I&amp;#8217;d be interested to see is effective ways of doing this: how to make people understand what they are looking at? F.i. for internal presentations, show a complete visual page, then peel off half to reveal a wireframe underneath, explain, continue in wireframes from there.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;Another thing I wonder about is your statement that people feel less free to comment on wireframes. Because people are more inclined to comment on paper prototypes than on hi-fi visual prototypes. Would the wireframe, being lo-fi but more structured than a hand-drawn screen, be an exception?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/real_wireframes#content_3659</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/real_wireframes#content_3659</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Zephyr Zephyr</author>
    </item>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I wholehearted agree with Tom. Thanks for an insightful and honest article!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/are_we_there_ye#content_3728</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/are_we_there_ye#content_3728</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Zephyr Zephyr</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

