Interactive Prototyping in HTML5 and jQuery: Exploring Design Possibilities
Table of Contents
- 1. Background
- 2. Sessions
- 2.1. Keynote
- 2.2. Prototyping in HTML5, jQuery
- 2.2.1. Don't obscure the mechanics of the underlying presentation capabilities
- 2.2.2. Car metphore
- 2.2.3. McLuan and tools
- 2.2.4. Structure + style + behavior
- 2.2.5. Misconception that HTML5 is meaningful
- 2.2.6. Indicated that jQuery is an abstraction
- 2.2.7. Modern browser support
- 2.2.8. Only care about the demo; forget about the deployment
- 2.2.9. Can demonstrate functionality that developers might noEt deploy
- 2.2.10. header, article, sidebar, footer; but who cares
- 2.2.11. microformats aren't the HTML5 elenents
- 2.2.12. input type examples
- 2.2.13. Do designers understand the concept of degradation?
- 2.2.14. Questions
- 2.3. Cultural Generations and Generation i
1. Background
#infocampseattle
2. Sessions
2.2. Prototyping in HTML5, jQuery
Goal: indicate what designers are looking for when providing interactive prototypes.
Contrasts with the static design patterns with Axture or OmniGraffle.
2.2.2. Car metphore
Understanding the background
2.2.3. McLuan and tools
2.2.4. Structure + style + behavior
2.2.6. Indicated that jQuery is an abstraction
"easy way to get the power of JavaScript"
2.2.7. Modern browser support
The key issue would be the events and selection.
This shouldn't be considered shimming.
2.2.10. header, article, sidebar, footer; but who cares
Still no browser support.
Why does the description care.
2.2.12. input type examples
What could actually be used
2.2.13. Do designers understand the concept of degradation?
That's the main benefit of this approach.
2.2.14. Questions
- Why are semantics even interesting for design
- Compatibility is the issue