Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Andrea Fidel

Andrea Fidel — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:50:14 GMT

Fred,
Nice job on a very comprehensive post regarding the different levels of wireframing that should be incorporated into the design and development process. As mentioned, there are many methods and tools out there that can help accomplish these goals; it is all about finding the tool/method that is right for you/your company and the project at hand. Not every client needs a full-blown prototype, but some projects require extensive user testing. In your latest comment, you bring up a good point; just because you are seeking feedback from all the project stakeholders does not mean you need to listen to everyone. Additional feedback and perspectives can be quite valuable, but it can also be cumbersome and counterproductive, as you note. It is a good idea to take all the feedback into consideration, but also have a main decision maker who can give the final word.

This article is a great resource! (and +1 to Nicole’s comment.)

Cheers,
Andrea
@ProtoShare

Andrea Fidel — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:43:19 GMT

I know this post has been up for a while, but I think it’s important to reiterate that the best go-to tool for wireframing is really finding one that you are comfortable with and fits your needs. This may be one tool or a combination of tools, depending on the project.

Many designers and developers still begin with pen and paper to get the ideas flowing. Others work internally with their teams, so desktop apps are sufficient. Still others need cleaner, high fidelity functionality that can be shared with remote teams or clients.

What is important is getting the architecture and functionality of the website or web app across to stakeholders to result in a better final product. There are a lot of no cost and low cost options. Good luck in your search!

Cheers,
Andrea
@ProtoShare (web-based, collaborative prototyping)

Andrea Fidel — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:34:04 GMT

Great information! Looks like a productive conference. Thanks for sharing such useful resources.

Cheers,
Andrea
@ProtoShare

Andrea Fidel — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:15:16 GMT

Anthony, great article! It has fostered a lot of discussion and brought to light issues teams often come across when trying to implement Agile into their processes.

You mention, “Agile does a good job of flexing to the winds of change. But one has to ask whether it was devised to treat a symptom of the larger cause: the business doesn’t know what it wants.”

Your observation is the root problem that our company works to solve for development teams. Even waterfall, when combined with rich prototyping and easy collaboration, enables stakeholders to interact with a simulation early in the process. The result is an unambiguous understanding that allows the client and the development teams to iteratively flesh out the project prior to writing code. Waterfall teams that integrate prototyping become more agile because they elicit and define requirements through iterative visualizations rather than comprehensive documentation. This process would be a hybrid of the Agile philosophy and waterfall method you mention.

Prototypes also allow Agile teams to “plan the big picture” while accelerating their development process. Creating an interactive visualization prior to each sprint ensures that everyone is on the same page and sprinting in the right direction.

I’d really like to hear your thoughts on how you think interactive prototyping fits into Agile UCD.

Thank you,
Andrea
@ProtoShare