By componentizing with dynamic panels and linked windows, it is easy to separate elements such as navigation, detail panes and tabs to have modular interactivity. At any point in time they should be able to interact with any interactive elements on the page. While the argument is it keeps the test participant on track, it also prevents the discovery of deeper insight (Why did the user veer off track? What would they tried to do next? How can we prevent that?) 3.) The prototype should not limit the user to one optionīuilding off the last point, the user should not be limited to only clicking on a select few buttons that had been designated to propel them along in a desired workflow.
Usually the top 3 hypothesized user paths are built into a prototype, and if the user deviates from those paths the prototype will gently guide them back. In 90% of the prototypes I have seen there is no true user input.
Axure rp pro 5.0 software#
For example if they decide to type in a value under 1000, the workflow they are sent down is different if they typed in a value over 1000.This type of dynamic input interaction is as simple as a few clicks in Axure and it really only takes 30 min to create a fully functioning data-collecting form as the software handles the conditional logic. We also need to use their input to dictate the path for the prototype. 1.) The data grid design mock-up must be easily updated with fresh dataįor testing it is pretty crucial to let the user to type whatever they wish into a field, whether that is a text input, date input, number, a yes/no toggle, etc. Depending on the inputs we want to send them down different paths. We need to test if we are displaying the correct and expected data, and allow the user to enter inputs.
Of course, something to consider is the fact that I mostly work on very complex software that also mostly happens to be enterprise software. This combined with their brilliant repeater feature, stackable dynamic panels, great built in flow-mapping tools and best-in-class interaction logic really just sets the software ahead of the pack when UX (not UI) is the name of the game. They even threw in a Sketch plugin for those occasions where the admittedly better UI-design capabilities of Sketch is needed.
Finally we now have the great symbol override features of Sketch, and developer inspect mode that generates redlines, CSS exporting and documentation. With Axure RP 9, they added a plethora of features that delighted hardcore fans (myself included). With the exception of some mobile-only app designs, the Sketch > Invision > ( Avocode/ Zeplin) workflow just seem like many unnecessary moving parts. As someone who has used Axure for 5+ years, I just don’t understand. When talking to UX designer friends and new faces at meetups, I personally found that at least 4/5 use Sketch as their primary design software, even when working on enterprise products. Sketch and Invision dominate the popular tools with Figma hot on its heels
0 kommentar(er)
