Andrei writes: "For what it's worth, the larger point isn't about "wireframes." The larger point is what Dave is saying. If all you create is wireframes, then you're not really an interface or interaction designer."
Response: I completely disagree, which simply goes to show that there can be very different informed perspectives on what constitutes an interaction designer. Most of my 25-year-long career has been based on high-fidelity flows (both wireframes and high-fidelity wireframes with production graphics as part of them). These have been delivered to dozens of different types of engineering groups and individuals for implementation in a vast range of products, platforms, software, and systems. So it's entirely possible. Again we see that our field has a broad range of possibilities, and not a narrow definition. Andrei writes: "Further, using software tools to create wireframes is largely busywork. You can do wireframes with pencil and paper. Why waste time producing a deliverable with a heavy software tool like Visio or Illustrator that will never show up in the final product? Just sketch it. It's both faster and more direct as a designer to do it that way." Response: I've always spent a great deal of time on my flows, both as early-stage pencil sketches, low-fidelity digital wireframes and thumbnail graphic flows, and then on to higher fidelity graphics and heavily described/note-intensive flows and documentation. I've always considered time doing flows to be thinking time. I'm using these graphical maps to consider alternative patterns, arrangements, configurations, and relationships. In my own work there's something about doing the graphical layout that supports my flow state and ability to think about the overall dynamic interactional architecture (I've used Illustrator and Photoshop in combination to do flows and documenation for the past 20 years, SuperPaint prior to that, and MacPaint back in the early days). I like maps and flows because it lets me examine alternative patterns faster. I can then also have there there to communicate with - primarily with my associate engineer, but also with clients or other associates (or apprentices that are working with me). Personally, I don't use Omnigraffle because I work faster and have more graphical and layout flexibility with Illustrator. I can import graphics from Photoshop master files where I'm creating the implementable graphics, and scale and move things around in a more accomodating manner. In short, I can simply be more graphically communicative in Illustrator. The other advantage of using digital tools (and I never do mockups or prototypes, except for physical industrial design prototypes - as I work with an engineer to build it for real as the design is being created), is the ability to quickly copy and make exploratory iterations. I find that much more difficult to do with pencil sketches. I find myself wanting to copy everything to a second iteration, but changing just one or two things, and then have both to compare. My method and approach has certainly worked for me, and again this is evidence of not everyone working successfully in the same manner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=39897 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
