Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Jonathan Baker-Bates

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:50 GMT

Personally, I use Fireworks for modular designs because it handles symbols very well I find. I create a file called “symbols” in which they are all stored, then import them as needed into the wireframe files I create. I then link the Fireworks PNGs into MS Word, where I annotate them (and get all the table of contents, page numbering and cross-references goodness I need). I can then also create clickable prototypes out of the same files if I want to using Fireworks’s (admittedly primitive) hot spots.

You have to run the “update” command on each of your wireframes to keep their symbols up to date though, which can be a pain, although there is an batch process extension you can get for this.

The tip on having an “archive” directory is nice, although I find I forget to archive versions enough, so now I just use a revision control system like VSS or CS-RCS (single use of which is free) to do it all for me. You can then do roll-backs, tag releases, etc.

You may have surmised from this that I don’t use Macs, and you’d be right, but I think all of the above is possible on that platform as well.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:51 GMT

Are you referring to my comment, Andres (sorry, not having threads make conversations difficult)?

I don’t understand what you mean when you say you find it hard to “keep track of the module version and their relationships to the parent documentation version.” Why would you want to keep track of that? Doesn’t everything just use the latest version?

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:51 GMT

One way of determining this is to perform a security audit and rate each asset in terms of impact of loss or damage (eg breaking into a timesheet system vs changing an employee salary scales spreadsheet, etc). This is traditionally done for the purposes of disaster planning, but I suppose it could be used in the context you mention. I did one once. Lord it was boring, and it took about three weeks.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:51 GMT

Fascinating, although I would have preferred a better choice of title for this article because at first I thought it was going to use prediction markets as a example of how to simplify complex ideas in general. Instead it’s about how to simplify complex ideas in prediction markets. Never mind, fun read, who cares.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:59 GMT

Actually, I’m pretty sure the etymology of the phrase “down loads” pre-dates modern computing considerably. My grandfather was using it in pre-war Britain along with “up loads” to describe different types of loading activity for ships. It was probably only expanded to be a verb later on.

But no matter, it’s a nice article. Part 2 is going to be much anticipated. What I’m perhaps most curious about is how one decides whether a metaphor is in fact the best way to aid understanding, because it could just as easily end up as a millstone. An obvious example would be if Tivo is “just a VCR” to some people, but a competitor is seen as “a device that lets you manipulate live TV.” Knowing when to kill off the meme is just as important as creating it, but in some cases you may not have that control.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:05 GMT

Scott – I don’t anyone’s suggesting that you wireframe rather than showing a demo. The “guided wireframe” technique is for when you don’t have anything to show yet, and need to specify it for those that need to build it, as well as allowing that spec to be digested, at least in part, by those that just need to sign off the concepts. It’s basically a “two tier” approach to the granularity, but in the end we’re talking about documenting for build, not pitching general ideas.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:07 GMT

I agee that this is, right now, a fantastically overblown article. However, I wonder about the long-term career progression of young IAs coming into the practice. In thirty years time, when their roles are well-defined and their methods accepted – will this article seem as ridiculous then as it does now? I hope not. Thanks, Bob, for some good futurology.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:17:39 GMT

Until now, I wasn’t aware that putting wireframes in front of users for the purposes of usability testing was in any way common practice. It seems a very odd thing to do. No wonder the author sees it as a problem, and no wonder most of the comments here are coming back saying “That’s why we use prototypes!”

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:19 GMT

Just to pick up on a minor point at the risk of coming across like a neo-Marxist nutjob…

The following comment in the article may seem at first innocuous: “An online publication could feature this month’s articles in high-contrast colors, while previous months are rendered more subtly.” However, I have a big problem with news sites, editorial control, and the idea that what goes for offline news should apply to the online variety. The problem I have can be summed up by the question “Why do I need to be told what is important news, by somebody I do not know, who knows nothing about me?”

This isn’t so much a UX issue I know, but I find it immoral that somebody should edit online news, let alone design a system that ingrains this editorial action. Offline news I have to accept is constrained by physical space, so I can tolerate that – but not on line. Sub-editing, yes, authoritative comment, fine, but deciding what I need to see, or what is important – no.

Nice article though, since this is an area that needs more attention in the overall design process. BTW the BBC’s “patina” idea was retired a couple of years back for being far too subtle, and in my opinion, pointless.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:23 GMT

I quite accept that your examples are merely there to demonstrate possible uses, but I worry when I read articles like this that posit a good thing (like ambient signifiers) that don’t then then follow through with solid examples. To take an extreme position: if the Tokyo underground usage is the only good example, then that’s an indication that perhaps the idea is not actually valid. The BBC’s “patina” experiment does little to show whether ambient signifiers on the web are appropriate or indeed even useful. My own opinion is that a web patina is not a good idea, since it would by definition discourage users from looking at content that they may well be interested in (for example, a temporary attractor hook). The fact that it would, over time, increasingly limit their ability to notice other things on the page makes it even worse in my opinion.

However, please don’t see this as strong criticism. I am very grateful to you in writing this article beause it’s given me pause for me to think about this.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:37 GMT

This is a very useful article. The only thing I’d say about it though is that it, in common with many other discussions of these tools, concentrates primarily on their value for prototyping software. I have been following Axure’s development closely, but not because of the product’s prototyping abilities. After all, I can prototype in just about anything – somebody here mentioned Hypercard, then there’s Dreamweaver, Flash, Powerpoint, etc. etc.

All this is, in my opinion, just noise. The real prize that tools like Axure hold out the possibility of attaining is that of being an “IDE for Experience Design.” Such a tool that lets us as IA/UX professionals communicate programatically with developers and designers via XML. It would seem to me to be a relatively small step from producing modularised screen designs as Word documents to XML schemas “describing” our designs that could then be used by other tools or systems to interpret those designs.

My worry is that Microsoft is stealing a potentially very powerful march in this area with Expression and XAML, but in being distracted by prototyping, the IA community is not stimulating non-MSFT vendors in the right direction.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:34:04 GMT

Nice summary of the field. I would point out though that in my own experience, anything to do with web analytics is a huge time sink – you need to be 100% clear about about what it is you are trying to find out, and exactly how you are going to do it. Far too often, I find people looking at almost useless aggregate traffic reports in the hope that they will reveal some insight. I think you’ve shown that it takes a lot more than that to be in supporting design directions.

By the way, I recall the presentation about CHI. Has anyone subsequently gone on to use that in any way?

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:40 GMT

Hmm – HREFs seem to be stripped out of posts here. Insert this link and the words “SCONE with TEA” between “about” and “CHI” in the above post:

http://vsis-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/getDoc.php/publ…

Didn’t B&A used to have post previews? Perhaps that’s an MSIE-only thing.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:40 GMT

Ah – just seen “Edit (for another 15minutes)” – but you can’t delete. Oh well. Sorry about this everyone.

Jonathan Baker-Bates — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 02:38:52 GMT

Would this be a riposte to the recent articles by Andrea Wiggins on “Metrics for Heuristics: Quantifying User Experience”? If so, I’d like to read it.