- Brittleness
- Robustness
- Diversity
- “Niche” Computer Systems
- Downtime
- Meaningful Use
- Efficiency
- Anticryptography
- Color
- RHIO
- “Wrong Patient”
- Cognitive Friction
- Dialog-Box Rooms
- Ignore
- What’s in a word?
- ALLCAPS
- Layers
- Consistency
- Menu
- Cost Disease
- RAND
- PHR
- Model T
- Giveaway
- Skeuomorphism
- Icon
- Signal-to-Noise Ratio
- Anti-Data Pixels
- iPhones
- Suicide
- Anthropology
- Wireframes
- Fitts’s Law
- Kludge
- Ebola
- Pop-Up
- Clicks
- Bad Apple
- Testing
- Bold
- Point-and-Click
- Anti-User Pixels
- Flat
- Glucose
- Accelerators
A wireframe document for a person profile view
A common technique for prototyping computer screens is to use wireframes. A recent article in UXmatters discusses wireframes, and asks whether wireframe prototypes are used by program designers as a substitute for real collaboration.
That’s a good question. But I think this is a better one: is showing wireframes to people a poor substitute for figuring out what users need to do, and then designing and refining a workflow process that works for them?
Wireframing, also known as paper prototyping (because it can all be done on paper, without wasting a single electron) can be an effective tool during design. However, it is not a substitute for sitting down with some of each class of users, using anthropological techniques to document the tasks they are accomplishing as they work, and using personas to guide the design of the computer-based work process for these classes of users, and then going back and using discount usability testing to refine the process.
Wireframes are good but not a substitute for either collaboration or task analysis.
Tags: paper prototyping, Information Technology, discount usabilty testing, IT, Usability, User Interaction Design, User Interface, Information Design, Anthropology, wireframe
