chris daly — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:43:26 GMT

Liz -

Wonderful to see your thoughts on this topic. In large degree, I couldn’t agree with you more – the pitfalls of over producing or over weighting wireframes are big. And the very usefulness of the document, and sometimes the smoothness of a project, are at stake.

However, I would challenge you on the idea that the answer is to make them simpler or to strip out extras. Or more specifically, I say get as detailed as possible, but develop the documents to be more customizable and readily available to appeal to different specific audiences. It seems that you are advocating a zero-sum game for wireframes, strip out some info to save other info – so no one piece of information can be presented without first losing another. I’d say lets turn that on its head and look to add value in a positive non-zero-sum scenario. And here goes…

I’ve noticed the same evolutions in my career as an IA that you note- the role of the wireframes and site map documentation is expanding as teams get more insight and experience in to how to use them effectively. So indeed, instead of their being 1 audience for wireframes, there are often 4 or 5 or 10. My response has been to deliver the same baseline document to each audience type, but comment only the parts that are relevant to that individual reader.

This is clearly analogous to classic Architects. To build an apartment building, an architect doesn’t draft a single set of documents – that would be madness. Instead, using the same basic features of the building as a foundation, an architect creates separates blueprint schematics for the electrical contractors, the carpenters, the plumbers, the landscapers, the fire warden, and probably Barney Rubble if he were to want one. Each set of documents have common elements but are specialized to the reader. In the larger strategic context, these individual (and tactically minded) specialized documents each represent a piece of the whole. And the whole can not be completed without each doc. Hence the strategy is to specialize such that each layer of document is independent for the specific audience but dependant on the others for the big, whole picture. Now that is some positive non-zero-sum goodness right there!

Bringing it back home – if an IA or architect were to then layer these documents one on top of the other, then all the areas of need would be addressed, but the metaphorical three dimensionality of the multiple layers allows for quicker dissection and consumption of the specific information each audience member requires.

Visio has some layering features in it (granted they could be seriously enhanced) that allows for sets of notations to be created and turned on and off on a page level with a single click. In this way I can create a baseline wireframe deck that has each actual wireframe/page as its foundation, but then I can turn on different sets of notes for each page in order to appeal to different readers.

I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on how this layering or 3-D metaphor can be turned into a more powerful document creation software.

Other than that, I trust you will find more treats than tricks this Halloween – and I hope to talk to you soon.

.christopher daly

chris daly — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:37:31 GMT

Good thinking John,

I’d be excited to read about the impact of results display as they relate to the nature of the search itself. Clearly that has connection to the other three components of your research. Specifically, how can the results be displayed to mutually achieve both user-first goals like “what am I looking for” as well as site-first goals like “this content is close to what you want and makes us more money.” Perhaps that is a split best addressed when considering more transactional sites vs. mroe content driven sites.

Thanks!

Boxes and Arrows: Comments by chris daly