<?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 Henry Mark</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/38662</link>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:34:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Henry Mark</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Good article Fred,  I totally agree with the &amp;#8220;multidimensional fidelity&amp;#8221; concept.   We&amp;#8217;ve used almost all kinds of combinations, and as you mentioned, they match different requirements.  We used to create prototypes for the same product but with different fidelity combinations, it double the workload but it worth it.  Recently we discovered a prototyping tool named &amp;#8220;ForeUI&amp;#8221;, I think its design conception is quite close to the &amp;#8220;multidimensional fidelity&amp;#8221; concept: it makes prototype skinnable so that we can move in the visual fidelity axis freely; it can export prototype to static image or &lt;span class="caps"&gt;PDF&lt;/span&gt;, and also be able to export as &lt;span class="caps"&gt;DHTML&lt;/span&gt; (which is interactive), thus we can move in the functional fidelity axis as well.  We like ForeUI very much since it save our time to create many prototypes for different fidelities.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/integrating#content_41473</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/integrating#content_41473</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:34:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Henry Mark</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

