dug 
Have recently followed a couple of discussions along the lines of “wireframes are dead” touting the cure-all properties of prototyping (like this or this). I love and use both methods depending on client and production context so I’m always left feeling a bit bemused by the level and depth of side-taking.
Was reviewing some old bookmarks and came across a lovely post by Owen Briggs:
Something that bothers me with most buildings is they are drawn. The designers drew floorplans and elevations and then set these perpendicular to create space. Their direct thinking was all done at the two dimensional level. They don’t see in three dimensional flows (or four dimensional; time) in the same basic way as they see 2D. The third and forth are added later, lightly understood and badly implemented…
He was writing this in 2001 and he was considering the potential frictions between the 4-dimensional world of digital and the use of line and paper, his foundational design method. Refreshing to see thought develop over time and very prescient of Mr Briggs:-)
Read the whole piece here:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com
Thanks to USC for the graphic
p.s. after posting this, one of the discussions on Linkedin when a bit ballistic and a guy called Soudy Khan had this v sensible point to add (can’t link directly to Linkedin comments. Bad Linkedin) about the issue:
Billions of dollars and windows of opportunity (through time delays) are lost because experiences aren’t specified-out properly. A lack of proper documentation leads to a great deal of back-and-forth with the engineering teams, features implemented improperly, etc.
Interesting the agile balancing act between specifying and specification…
Cat signal time again