Will There Be A New Prototype Game

[Shelly Takacs]

Inoticed that the starting frame thingy is not retained in the destination page (the one you paste the content into) - so you have to go in the right side and select it from the drop down or there will be no starting frame. Make sure you click outside the stuff in the page (on the background area) so that setting will appear in that right hand column.

I was really hoping this would be addressed in the smoother copy/paste additions released recently. So far, I have not seen it listed nor experienced the ability to reliably bring over the prototype interactions from one page in a file to another file.

Mate, you have no idea how many hours you just saved me. This is brilliant and works exactly how I needed it to! Allow me to turn what you said in a sentence into points so others can scan it quickly when reading this thread:

I would love to be able to create one prototype across the pages in a file that resembles an actual website. This would be ideal for bigger projects and would be easier to maintain as well. We can connect the component libraries across all the pages anyways. A way to connect the prototype would be great in my opinion and that will give Figma a big leg up on other platforms.

When creating a high quality prototype I felt it was necessary to link interaction with other pages. I have a page only of components of a project and I created a multi select component with dropdown interaction, among others, I simply wanted to import only the first multi select asset to a different page and it will be already linked with the interactions made on the component page . Do it for us Figma s2

Lots of times there is a feature I want to leave on a separate page till Dev have the time to work on it, so I can avoid distractions on the original page (where the current state of the app is shown). This requires me to do lots of duplicates if I want to provide a working prototype on the alternative page. That sucks.

There is so much that could be done with this feature.

Yes, it would help organize larger project.

One nice thing would be, if you have something like dropdown menus, tooltips, global interactions, etc, those could be organized in separate pages, and then the main UX prototype page(s) could link to those interactions.

You should now be able to click the Home and About links to navigate between pages. It does work, but the user experience is not great, as each link initially opens in a new tab and the interface changes.

We use documents from a major provider. As most of you know the differences between prototypes and the check the box volume submitter documetns have diminished signficiantly now that a) PT's can use cross-testing, and b) VS documents can have TPA initiated regulatory amendments.

So if a) prototype has less flexibility than the vs (i.e., limitations on # of allocation groups), b) the pricincing is essentially the same, then why would anyone opt to use the prototype (other than branding). Or is branding the primary reason? Is there anything a prototype can do that a VS cannot?

There are still sugnificant differences. VS plan can provide and PT can't provide the following - multiple employer plans, DB plan with EE contributions, governmental plans and non safe harbor hardship criteria.

In fact, VS can be branded, so I don't think branding is the issue. Not so long ago, the traditional VS was not prefered by many because there was no adoption agreement which easily identified provisions selected by the employer. Now we have availaibility of VS prototype-style documents, which are virtually identical to the prototype AAs we're familiar with--along with the other "improvements" you mention.

Therefore, I do not see any reason not to convert to a prototype-style VS. (And, IRS is still accepting word-for-word adoptions of EGTRRA pre-approved prototype-style VS documents--such as Corbel--and issuing opinion letters for plan providers.) I think the non-standardized prototype will now go the way of the old standardized prototypes: disappear. I welcome someone more enlightened than I am to educate me on the reasons for a plan provider to remain with a prototype.

Since the Service has made the VS (check the box) so much like the prototype, why does the Service continue them separately rather than merge them into one? Does anyone know what the Service's rationale for keeping them separate is?

Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.

If you have some employees with less than 500 hours and terminated during the year, they may cause you to fail testing with a volume submitter. but you get a pass on testing with a standardized prototype. Let's the plan has 3% SHNEC and a discretionary profit sharing with last day requirement. Because the terminated employees received the 3% SHNEC, they have to be counted in testing even though they have fewer than 500 hours.

I think for most of the people participating here, VS is the way to go because of the flexibility that it offers. And the check-the-box style VS has the added advantage of being at least somewhat comprehensible to a layman.

But I think in another part of the world, prototypes have an advantage - the sponsor can amend them and just tell the adopting employers that it's been amended, without having to get said adopting employers to take any action. So the turnkey operations, and lower forms of life such as Fidelity that offer free plans in order to capture assets, are able to keep all of their plans qualified for interim amendments by making an amendment and doing a mass mailing.

I have a question though: What if we signed up to sponsor our own prototype, but just use the Corbel-sponsored VS check the box document. Would Corbel be responsible for executing snap-one regulatory update amendments (except that we would obviously need to be distributing copies to our adopters)?

VS can now allow the VS sponsor to adopt amendments on behalf of employers, just as in the traditional prototype. Corbel's Basic Plan Document language is identical for prototype & VS-prototype. (I think the traditional VS does not have that language and it has to be added, but I'm not sure.)

Just as with the prototype, Corbel will send out its approved VS-prototype language, then the sponsor of the VS-prototype document adopts the amendment, and then the sponsor informs the employers of the adoption.

You need to wrap it in a frame and draw the connection from the frame. This will not only ensure the prototype is working, but also make it accessible, since a thin arrow may be hard to click if you only use its visual bounding box.

i have a similer problem the connections are okay and the flow works properly when played first time on web browser but i must restart web page for it to work agin and it not working at all on Figma desktop app

So I have a prototype embedded (iframe) in a website and it will not load unless 3rd party cookies are enabled. The error it gives is "There was a problem displaying this prototype." which is not very helpful. I have looked everywhere for a solution but I cannot locate one.

I should also mention that the direct prototype link works flawlessly when it is not embedded (iframe) into a website, it works on all browsers. It only encounters an error when embedded, which results in 3rd party cookies that are blocked by most browsers.

I have been trying to embed a prototype into a website using the embed code (iframe), but most browsers are blocking the cross site resources in my prototype by default. Since the domain of the prototype and my domain are different, the prototype's cross site resources are blocked.

I assume there is a workaround for this, or something that I am missing, as many people are using embedded XD prototypes in their websites without issues.

I already followed the steps on this page, but this issue has nothing to do with my browsers, it is a web design issue.

I just tested an embed and it's working fine in all browsers. With an iframe the resources are not actually being loaded into your page, they are kept within the iframe (like a window in a window), so you should not be getting cross site errors. Have you set more restrictive browser settings maybe? Normal browser settings should not be blocked the embed.

Are you sure about that? When I check the inspector the browser is certainly pulling cross site resources and cookies from adobe through the iframe. When third party cookies/resources are enabled in all of the browsers, everything works fine. However, the default setting on browsers like Edge and Brave is to block 3rd party resources. Chrome is the only browser (that I use) that currently allows third party resources by default. Therefore with the default settings, the resources are blocked, and the prototype is not visible on Edge and Brave. I don't want to make every visitor to the site turn on 3rd party resources/cookies just to view the prototype, I just want it to display even if the visitor is using default settings.

If you only had a prototype that was functional, but not production quality in terms of appearance, do you think it is worth it to send to reviewers? The other option I was considering was to ask for a feature and agree to send a final product after the Kickstarter campaign, but I was thinking this might have a lower success rate. Thoughts?

Linda: Thanks for your question. I think designers have different approaches to Protospiels, but if I were to attend one, I would wait until the game is functional and fun but not finished. I would also make sure that it looks good, as this is your chance to make a great first impression.

I believe an elegant but simple sign indicating the game is a prototype would suffice for casual observers in a fair like Spiel. Additionally I would include a one page (maximum) list of the prototype characteristics compared to the intended final product. All this introduced by a brief paragraph explaining the need for a prototype during the game development process.

3a8082e126