<?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 G Manfredi</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/2834</link>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:11:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by G Manfredi</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Samantha,&lt;br /&gt;Thank you for the review of Intuitect.  I have installed their trial version and I like their approach a lot.  Unfortunately, after two days of struggling with it, I have decided to move on and am considering Axure.  The reason is that Intuitect is fraught with bugs, things break making me start from scratch, patterns get off-center and cannot be fixed, flowmaps break easily thus having connectors hanging out that cannot be deleted, etc.  In the end, I couldn&amp;#8217;t really finish a decent flow.  They don&amp;#8217;t even integrate tables yet.  It&amp;#8217;s a very good approach, yet the product is not mature and stable &lt;span class="caps"&gt;YET&lt;/span&gt; for real production work.  I wish them luck and hope they get it right.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#8217;ve also reviewed iRise (fabulous yet even their new $10K/year program is still a bit expensive and learning curve is steep), simunicator (very very interesting approach, yet too much programming for what I need), Axure (easiest and most effective for my needs so far), stpBA (not bad, but ugly output), etc.  Axure may win out for now.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/keeping-pace-with#content_4808</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/keeping-pace-with#content_4808</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:11:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>G Manfredi</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
