Robert Griffin — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:22:44 GMT

I have been calling myself an information architect probably as long as Dan has. Of course there was that terrible period in the early 00’s when I was calling myself unemployed. But it is good to see that the development world and the likes of Mr. Rosenfeld and Morville have kept the field alive. I have been teaching introduction to Multimedia at the New England Institute of Art since 1998, and during students very first course they have to develop a proposal, flow chart, storyboard, blue print and a working wireframe for their first professional project.

It may be a lot to ask of freshmen, but they always rise to the occasion every semester, even though they don’t have the business experience to support some of their ideas. At first, we didn’t know what to call “wireframes” and so we called them prototypes, for lack of any other term. But after reading Dan’s description up above about page schematics, well, it made me feel less alone in trynig to define new terms in an industry that generates so many. I am so thankful now that the world embraces wireframes, and that I can convince students of their value.

Bob Griffin
Full-time Faculty
Interactive Media Design
New England Institute of Art

Robert Griffin — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:47:24 GMT

I also concur. I teach a college course in Information Architecture (http://bg411.aisites.com, see WDIM390) and we teach both perspectives, i.e. wireframes are for everyone. I base most of my reasoning on Moreville and Rosenfeld’s tome (Information Architecture, Chapter 12 on BPs and Wfs). We really accentuate that a wireframe should NEVER be presented on its on merit, i.e. you should be there to explain it. We also emphasize that there are different versions for different audiences, but the one that is for the client is meant to foster “buy-in” for the architecture and design.

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Robert Griffin