[Sigia-l] Wireframe/Prototyping tools (was RE:Intelligentsigns atMicrosof t)

[Fred Beecher]

Wow, how did my favorite subject come up without my noticing it until now!?

I'm a huge Axure fan... I've used it for 5 projects so far, and I
still really like it. I'm currently using the 4.2 beta, and the
addition of the ability to pass variables to pages to control the
state of dynamic panels on the page is great. It's not fully there yet
(you can't do that when the panels are masters... huge bummer!), but
it's a lot closer than it was before. The current project I'm doing in
Axure couldn't possibly be done without it (lots of hoops being jumped
through).

One thing that I *dislike* about Axure, is that if you don't plan
carefully before you begin a project, you end up doing a LOT of
repetitive copying & pasting. Before I begin any project now, I do a
lot of thinking on paper. I then use Axure to document that thinking
and make it come alive. Also, Axure's interface requires what seems to
be a ridiculous amount of clicking and pop-up windows and such. The UI
could really do with an overhaul (ah, the dangers of designing an
application for UI designers, heh)

Alright, I will now try to respond to many messages at once...

On 8/22/06, Laurie Gray <laurie.gray at gmail.com> wrote:
> The only thing I should note - and it's not a problem for me, is that
> the HTML is "dirty" - our developers are not able to reuse it in any

Yes, it probably is. But for the purposes of IA, I don't think the
code needs to be re-usable. Axure is great for being able to test
*wireframes* in a a prototype format. I've done projects before where
we've tested an Axure prototype, and then later on performed a more
comprehensive test with a prototype (non-Axure) with all the creative
added in.

> others have noted, it works well. The word document formatting is not
> bad - I wish I could have a bit more control over the format prior to
> output, but it's just as easy to do after the document is generated. I
> did play around with having it export using a particular template, but
> never got that working quite right. Then again, I am not a Word whiz -
> my sessions with it typically tend to degenerate into a bunch of blue
> language...

Heh, yes, I spent a good deal of time making an "Axure.dot" file
myself, but it  paid off. Most of my time was spent stripping
extraneous styles out of the document. With a limited number of
styles, most of my Functional Specs now come out looking right.

> And, I totally agree on Victor's responsiveness. He's been very
> helpful any time we have contacted him.

Again, 100% agreement. *Fabulous* customer support.

On 8/22/06, Andrew <andrew at humaneia.com> wrote:

> - the Word output is great for fitting into a larger specification,
> prefaced with an overview section and a set of business rules. This is
> great for producing large documents in a hurry (definitely pass the
> "thud test"!)

Definitely a thud factor. My secret for building a good functional
spec is to generate one with a custom template, include the relevant
prefixes and suffixes, make corrections (e.g., taking out a redundant
TOC), and saving it. The secret bit is that, for further Functional
Spec generations, I'll generate to a different file, called
"supplemental." I'll then copy & paste the relevant changes into the
first file. This reduces redundant work.

> - We're looking forward to playing with version 4.2 and seeing if we can
> use it to replace Visio for interaction diagrams.

I've used it so far for two projects (well, one and a half... getting
there with my current project). The only thing I've used Visio for in
these projects is a site map. The only thing that, for me, is
different than using Visio for the interaction diagrams is that in
Axure they tend to want to be vertical rather than horizontal. I've
traditionally done my diagrams horizontally, so this is a change for
me. But an insignificant one. They also render better in a functional
spec when they are done vertically.

On 8/18/05, Listera <listera at rcn.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Baker-Bates:
>
> > Of all the tools on the market today, I'd say Axure has the most promise
> > as an "IDE for IAs"...
>
> Have you specifically asked them who they target as their main customer
> base?

I think they don't want to limit themselves to IAs, but I know they
know we're out there. I, at least, have been making them aware of
this. I think the latest addition of page flow capability is a result
of their listening to the needs of IAs. The only thing left, really,
to make it a full IDE for IAs is to integrate some sort of site
mapping functionality. But really, I'd rather do that in Visio. I have
my specific shapes and my output to PDF. I can hook up PDF site maps
to an Axure prototype with little difficulty.

There is a company called Intuitect (http://www.intuitect.com/) who
are working on an interesting looking tool that integrates into Visio.
There was once some talk of being able to generate a sitemap directly
from a content document (excel file), but that doesn't seem to be
represented on the site. Anyway, it's worth a look.

Alright, enough of my rambling. Suffice it to say that Axure is a
worthy tool, and that it has allowed me to easily and efficiently
accomplish tasks that would've taken a lot more time and money without
Axure... in some cases, I simply couldn't have accomplished some
things without it.

Take care,
Fred