My approach to scene-framing is something I've developed, over the course of my experience, since some time in 1986 when I first GMed AD&D OA.I might not prefer a game like @pemerton describes, where every scene is framed into play and the interstices are ... mostly elided (as I understand the descriptions of that table's play) but it doesn't sound as though there are any illusory decision points being deployed--it's fundamentally honest.
My ability to think coherently about it rests mostly on reading stuff by Ron Edwards and Paul Czege on The Forge.
A big breakthrough for me was working out, at some point or other, that geography is not the be-all and end-all. Maps and terrain matter to wargaming; but in a game that want to emulate (say) The Wizard of Earthsea they're mostly colour. That's not to say that travel doesn't matter - of course in an Earthsea game it's fundamental. But if travel is going to be more than just narration to move things along - if it's travel with stakes - then you resolve it via a check, and then if the check fails you narrate being washed up on an island by a storm, or whatever else seems appropriate, using the map in the books to inform that narration. I use the GH maps the same way in my Burning Wheel play. And the maps of Britain and Europe when playing Prince Valiant. (In 4e this is the domain of skill challenges; and maps provide colour for narration in just the same way.)
I think that identifying (i) what is, or is not, just colour, (ii) how actions are resolved (eg map and key vs skill challenge), and (iii) how scenes are framed (by whom, in accordance with what principles) is more fundamental than talking about eliding interstices. Everyone does that; otherwise we could never pass more than 4 hours in a session of play, and our PCs would never even make it to the dungeon entrance.