<?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 Javier Odriozola</title>
    <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/person/9350</link>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:52:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <description>Comments by Javier Odriozola</description>
    <item>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I always had something that bugged me about wireframes and is this:&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;As I understand, wireframes are only good to test simple aspects of the use of a site or application like &amp;#8220;if we put this back button here or there&amp;#8230;&amp;#8221;. But I think all those design patterns are more than established and feels a little like reinventing the wheel to try and change them. I mean, all the web sites that have great usability put the same stuff in the same way on the same spot. Because it makes sense, through consistency you make sure the user won&amp;#8217;t get lost.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;In the other hand the thing that really can make a difference is the design itself, because if you dont nail it right, it will bury some things you want people to notice. So it makes more sense in my mind to test a design itself not only a rough wireframe, because the greatest thing you can do for usability is put the stuff where the user expects to find it, and that is already more than established.&lt;/p&gt;

	&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#8217;t know if I made myself clear because English is not my main language, but I certanly hope to have contributed something to the discussion.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <link>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/real_wireframes#content_9731</link>
      <guid>http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/real_wireframes#content_9731</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:52:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <author>Javier Odriozola</author>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
