Comments on: UX leadership insight #10: Tools of trade http://blog.nordkapp.fi/2009/12/ux-leadership-insight-10-tools-of-trade/ Blog of an interactive design consultancy from Helsinki, Finland. Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:48:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: samin http://blog.nordkapp.fi/2009/12/ux-leadership-insight-10-tools-of-trade/#comment-218 samin Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:01:21 +0000 http://blog.nordkapp.fi/?p=350#comment-218 I think there's a fine line between hardcore video and wireframes— it all depends on who you need to communicate to. I've often found a bell curve on the needed fidelity on the style.. E.g. for impatient consumers one needs to have a movie trailer-like experience, which has a set of focused actions and good story to tell. On the other hand, when communicating to say, scrum team you need to worry less about the wow and more about the granularity and details. And of course more high up at corporate hierarchy you go, less time your audience has and hence you need to follow more trailer-like aesthetics and storytelling. What comes to day-to-day team work, I think small demos work quite nicely. Individual transitions, effects etc. Small, important details that finally make the experience. Almost as if you'd develop an UI framework as you go. And while at it, there should be a few approximate pixel-perfect layouts and more detailed / functional wireframes, either interactive or stills. This way it's easy to communicate your work on all levels of stakeholders, and also leave a clear visual trail where you're heading. I think there’s a fine line between hardcore video and wireframes— it all depends on who you need to communicate to. I’ve often found a bell curve on the needed fidelity on the style.. E.g. for impatient consumers one needs to have a movie trailer-like experience, which has a set of focused actions and good story to tell. On the other hand, when communicating to say, scrum team you need to worry less about the wow and more about the granularity and details. And of course more high up at corporate hierarchy you go, less time your audience has and hence you need to follow more trailer-like aesthetics and storytelling.

What comes to day-to-day team work, I think small demos work quite nicely. Individual transitions, effects etc. Small, important details that finally make the experience. Almost as if you’d develop an UI framework as you go. And while at it, there should be a few approximate pixel-perfect layouts and more detailed / functional wireframes, either interactive or stills. This way it’s easy to communicate your work on all levels of stakeholders, and also leave a clear visual trail where you’re heading.

]]> By: Ville http://blog.nordkapp.fi/2009/12/ux-leadership-insight-10-tools-of-trade/#comment-212 Ville Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:34:57 +0000 http://blog.nordkapp.fi/?p=350#comment-212 i'd say video prototypes do this kind of stuff well, though they need to be done very rigorously and by a person who knows the medium (ie. video). the production work can be *very* time-consuming if one doesn't know what to do. and it's not that hard - just requires the right people who can do it feasibly and enough technical specifications for the system so the designer can create appropriate simulations of the system into the video. and there are many levels of fidelity one can work with to speed up the process and structure the prototyping into smaller pieces and levels of detail. f.ex. you don't necessarily need computer graphics at all in the beginning stages - a stop motion animation with post-it notes is an okay medium (but you really have to know the stop motion animation process in order not to get into trouble!). i’d say video prototypes do this kind of stuff well, though they need to be done very rigorously and by a person who knows the medium (ie. video). the production work can be *very* time-consuming if one doesn’t know what to do. and it’s not that hard – just requires the right people who can do it feasibly and enough technical specifications for the system so the designer can create appropriate simulations of the system into the video.

and there are many levels of fidelity one can work with to speed up the process and structure the prototyping into smaller pieces and levels of detail. f.ex. you don’t necessarily need computer graphics at all in the beginning stages – a stop motion animation with post-it notes is an okay medium (but you really have to know the stop motion animation process in order not to get into trouble!).

]]> By: Hannu Konttinen http://blog.nordkapp.fi/2009/12/ux-leadership-insight-10-tools-of-trade/#comment-210 Hannu Konttinen Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:39:57 +0000 http://blog.nordkapp.fi/?p=350#comment-210 Good article! I share this same vision of a fluid UX. I think until we have more fluid tools, it remains for the design lead to challenge the design teams to think this way. That said, I do think many designers intuitively share this vision, but how to make it as clean, simple and sharp as the rest elements in the UX... Constant prototyping helps but I do think a lot of it happens in the "head" until you start seeing actual running sw. This again may be a challenge when dealing with customers. The faster you get to actual SW the better. Good article! I share this same vision of a fluid UX. I think until we have more fluid tools, it remains for the design lead to challenge the design teams to think this way. That said, I do think many designers intuitively share this vision, but how to make it as clean, simple and sharp as the rest elements in the UX… Constant prototyping helps but I do think a lot of it happens in the “head” until you start seeing actual running sw. This again may be a challenge when dealing with customers. The faster you get to actual SW the better.

]]>