As leaders in digital innovation, we’re constantly considering and testing the impact of new technology and fresh approaches to hone best practise, enhance user experience and grow revenues. These are some of our latest thoughts and findings:
My previous post on user experience methodology was on wireframing. I described my preferred method of sketching, or ‘low–fidelity wireframing’ (or the appropriate fidelity of wireframing’, depending on how you look at it). I wrote that wireframing should be quick, throwaway, collaborative and iterative: the first step in a process leading on to the much more serious business of prototyping.
I recently had the pleasure of attending this year’s dConstruct conference for a day of great company and insightful talks on the topic of communicating with machines. At this point you might be expecting my run-down of the day but thankfully lots of other people have that covered so instead I’m going to deconstruct a conversation I overheard in the ladies’ loos.
The wireframe is a ubiquitous tool in the UX armoury when building sites, apps and games. Wireframes are used to convey the requirements and features for each page or screen and to specify and communicate a rough understanding of layout, grouping and hierarchy.
From the perfect font size to what constitutes too many clicks, there are many widely held false beliefs that I encounter as a UX practitioner. Holding on to such misbeliefs is downright detrimental to designing and developing great digital experiences. By responding to how we think people behave, we fail to accommodate how they actually do behave.