<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Documenting Interactive Websites</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/</link>
	<description>User Standards and Innovative Technology @ News Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 05:15:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usit.com.au/?p=327#comment-153</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This is a little off-topic, but over on the IxDA discussion list, Jared Spool referred to this &quot;fantastic low-fi example for communicating about a rich internet application&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This isn&#039;t documenting a design, but it&#039;s a form of communication that gets your attention and is playful and engaging. The stop motion is well done, but I&#039;m not sure about ease of production; wouldn&#039;t this take quite a while to produce?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;(via &lt;a href=&quot;http://simplerisbetter.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/prototyping-rich-internet-applications-rias/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Steve Baty&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a little off-topic, but over on the IxDA discussion list, Jared Spool referred to this &#8220;fantastic low-fi example for communicating about a rich internet application&#8221;:</p>
<p><a href="http://commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english" rel="nofollow">http://commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english</a></p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t documenting a design, but it&#8217;s a form of communication that gets your attention and is playful and engaging. The stop motion is well done, but I&#8217;m not sure about ease of production; wouldn&#8217;t this take quite a while to produce?</p>
<p>(via <a href="http://simplerisbetter.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/prototyping-rich-internet-applications-rias/" rel="nofollow">Steve Baty</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usit.com.au/?p=327#comment-104</guid>
		<description>Thanks @Jonathan

I agree, prototyping is definitely the approach that I think works best for highly interactive interfaces. Which is why I was kinda surprised at the response from my audience on Friday; they didn&#039;t seem to think much of prototyping.

This is probably partly due to the issue I discussed above, whereby anything that doesn&#039;t look finished won&#039;t pass muster with clients (or at least they &lt;em&gt;think&lt;/em&gt; their clients won&#039;t accept it).

However, there&#039;s also the matter of available skills. Building a prototype that is worth the time to do so, takes technical skills. Our team is quite lucky in that regard, because we have quite high levels of technical skills for a UX team. Including our &#039;Javascript Ninja&#039; Patrick Lee :)

Perhaps this will change, as you have suggested, as prototyping tools improve and mature, removing the need for such technical know-how.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks @Jonathan</p>
<p>I agree, prototyping is definitely the approach that I think works best for highly interactive interfaces. Which is why I was kinda surprised at the response from my audience on Friday; they didn&#8217;t seem to think much of prototyping.</p>
<p>This is probably partly due to the issue I discussed above, whereby anything that doesn&#8217;t look finished won&#8217;t pass muster with clients (or at least they <em>think</em> their clients won&#8217;t accept it).</p>
<p>However, there&#8217;s also the matter of available skills. Building a prototype that is worth the time to do so, takes technical skills. Our team is quite lucky in that regard, because we have quite high levels of technical skills for a UX team. Including our &#8216;Javascript Ninja&#8217; Patrick Lee :)</p>
<p>Perhaps this will change, as you have suggested, as prototyping tools improve and mature, removing the need for such technical know-how.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Attias</title>
		<link>http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Attias</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usit.com.au/?p=327#comment-102</guid>
		<description>Nice presentation Patrick!

Documenting interactivity is notoriously difficult if you&#039;re just using words and static pictures to describe it. But interactive prototypes (even crude ones) can demonstrate ideas much more clearly and with less effort all round. There&#039;s nothing like &#039;seeing it in action&#039; to really &#039;get&#039; the idea.

The dilemma between lo-fi &quot;sketchy&quot; interface designs that promote discussion and change, and hi-fi presentations that are more readily accepted by (some) higher level management and clients is a tricky one.

The way we&#039;ve tried to address this in our GUI Design Studio prototyping tool is to allow the visual style to be changed dynamically so that you can see the same prototype in full hi-fi splendour or as a more lo-fi wireframe. That way, you more or less get the best of both worlds.

I think that prototyping will become more widespread as the availability of the tools becomes more well known and their capabilities mature.

Cheers,
Jonathan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice presentation Patrick!</p>
<p>Documenting interactivity is notoriously difficult if you&#8217;re just using words and static pictures to describe it. But interactive prototypes (even crude ones) can demonstrate ideas much more clearly and with less effort all round. There&#8217;s nothing like &#8216;seeing it in action&#8217; to really &#8216;get&#8217; the idea.</p>
<p>The dilemma between lo-fi &#8220;sketchy&#8221; interface designs that promote discussion and change, and hi-fi presentations that are more readily accepted by (some) higher level management and clients is a tricky one.</p>
<p>The way we&#8217;ve tried to address this in our GUI Design Studio prototyping tool is to allow the visual style to be changed dynamically so that you can see the same prototype in full hi-fi splendour or as a more lo-fi wireframe. That way, you more or less get the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>I think that prototyping will become more widespread as the availability of the tools becomes more well known and their capabilities mature.</p>
<p>Cheers,<br />
Jonathan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GUI Design and Software Prototyping :: Nice Presentation About Documenting Interactive Websites</title>
		<link>http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>GUI Design and Software Prototyping :: Nice Presentation About Documenting Interactive Websites</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usit.com.au/?p=327#comment-101</guid>
		<description>[...] Documenting Interactive Websites blog post contains the slides (also below) along with some great notes that he took after the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Documenting Interactive Websites blog post contains the slides (also below) along with some great notes that he took after the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harald Felgner &#38; the Red Fez</title>
		<link>http://www.usit.com.au/2008/11/17/documenting-interactive-websites/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>Harald Felgner &#38; the Red Fez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usit.com.au/?p=327#comment-100</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;&amp;445/ Essential Slides: Documenting for Interactive Websites...&lt;/strong&gt;

 Patrick Kennedy started his interactive discussion session presented at the &quot;Enhancing Online User Experiences&quot; conference in Melbourne, Australia. November 13th 2008 with: &quot;Do we really need all this documentation?&quot;......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>&amp;445/ Essential Slides: Documenting for Interactive Websites&#8230;</strong></p>
<p> Patrick Kennedy started his interactive discussion session presented at the &#8220;Enhancing Online User Experiences&#8221; conference in Melbourne, Australia. November 13th 2008 with: &#8220;Do we really need all this documentation?&#8221;&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
