Is Overfanning a wireframe?

Question

37 Signal As I became convinced that the documentation on functional specifications and writing documents is an intermediate step, unnecessary for creating web applications and dynamic websites.

Are the overhead for these steps its weight? Is prototyping HTML / CSS or even PhotoShop documents (so designers can work with them directly) better than using software like Visio? Personally, I sway in relation to the latter, but not sure.

Answer 1

"It is impossible to plan a plan with an error" - or something like that.

The framework is not limited to web applications; it is widely used wherever a high-level overview of any system is needed (this is simply called something else).

Functional specifications, when you know what to do and how to do it, will really be redundant. A high level chart of your intentions will suffice. And it will never be superfluous. This primarily helps you focus on the scope and purpose / goal of what you want to do.

The focus should be on preventing wasted effort - finding out halfway through something significant that affects all other objects is missing, this is not what you want to detect. Wireframing in this case will help identify most of the basic functional needs. You will only need to clarify the functional specification where it is absolutely necessary. Using Photoshop to develop your will will also be "wasted" - it is much better to use evolutionary prototyping (the RAD technique) using CSS / HTML - but still do the manual and paper layouts of your intentions.

Answer 2

37Signals protect even Photoshop skipping and conversion to HTML. See http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1061-why-we-skip-photoshop . I agree with their assessment of prior planning. I don’t think it was worth the time in the long run, when you could spend time creating a working prototype in HTML / CSS / JS.

Answer 3

In real life, you want to avoid looking for the “perfect” way to do something. Instead, use what you understand for a clear and specific purpose.

Layouts can save you time and effort. Because they can be just the extra time you spent creating and maintaining them.

Real Life Example # 1: Layouts saved this day. Great system for government, deadline ridiculous.

Reason: Months have passed, releasing all kinds of architectural documents, which are actually completely unnecessary, because the HW and SW architecture are fixed in stone to the smallest detail and actually already exist.

Solution: 20 crazy days of creating layouts with the client, until we just give the screens to our developers notes. The developers really had to ask for some clarification, but with a fixed architecture and clear and visual requirements, they were able to instantly identify the required tons of features.

Real Life Example # 2: Layouts ruined the day. A large state system that “recognized” the need for layouts.

It shows the human (or corporate) ability to turn the world's best into a nightmare.

A large government agency asked a large consulting company to lead a large IT company to solve the problem. The government agency has also established a large, specialized body of government experts on topics to help and accelerate this process.

Months passed in big words and when deciding on the appropriate methodologies for use and the correct ways to use them. All sorts of compromises were made, of course, so as not to harm either feelings or importance.

Result: Sw architecture was supposed to be the source of everything, including layouts. Which was to be designed first and second. Comparison of actions with OOAD and sequence diagrams, UX diagrams were made, then logical objects and UI data packets were identified, actual screens were compiled and included in formal use cases, UC were presented to users in the form of formal seminars once a month, these seminars doubled, since the meeting to accept the requirements, as someone found out that time is slipping away.

At these seminars, even with the help of force, customers could not be forced to leave (highly formal, with many tables describing data attributes, etc.), each with approximately 30 pages. When customers had some feedback, it was on layouts. But feedback was not encouraged, since any change in layout led to a change in sequence diagrams, component diagrams, operating model, UX diagrams, verification of traceability matrices, updating UC texts, etc. Etc. And only to get more feedback. ("Damn it, they are never satisfied") was the motive). After deploying version 1.0 with limited functionality, no one else cared about the documentation, there were so many. Developers fought for their lives, made many small changes every day, just to start the system (after yesterday's batch of changes made something else break).

This is NOT a way to use layouts. The project lasted almost 2 years longer than planned.

In other words, don't look for the perfect methodology. Or any methodology that you do not understand. What is your current goal? What is the fastest way you know (other methods do not take into account) to achieve this? Take action.

Answer 4

This probably depends on who you work with. If it's you and the designer, then the functional specification may be too complex. But, in my work, managers want to know exactly what they are going to get at the end of the project, and therefore it was very difficult for us to implement iterative development. Iterations are usually defined by wireframes, functional specifications, and layouts. :)

Answer 5

The main goal of performing wire frames is to clarify the requirements. Clearly documenting requirements is always advisable, and there is no better way than visualizing requirements. Frames help in great shape here, this gives the owner of the product (client) a clear idea of ​​what to expect from the final product. With approval from the product owner, it also gives a clearer picture of the development team about what needs to be developed. In any case, this saves development time and prevents conflicts. In my opinion, wired frames are always useful for smooth project execution, even when the project is small.

Answer 6

I believe that it depends on how well you understand what you are trying to do. If you are working with a client and they do not reflect the requirements very much, you might want an approach with extremely fast iterations. If you already have a good understanding and you can do something more substantial without worrying about throwing it away because it was the wrong direction, then more time can be spent. In any case, a clickable prototype can go a long way in determining what a real site should be. If you can agree on a prototype, then when your application matches the prototype, you know that it is complete.