Isn't that what the evenings will be for - only using beer to facilitate our discussions?
will evans user experience architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617.281.1281 On Oct 31, 2007, at 7:40 PM, "David Malouf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanx for the chance to clarify, as I'm saying something on a > different list that counters what I said below. > > You NEED both. (that's the simple version), but my experience is that > w/o the prototype there is too much ambiguity and to pull from one of > the messages of Alan's article, unpredictability. > > In that other thread on SIGIA-L we were discussing how to make Axure > or any other prototyping:documentation tool better and in my mind the > ideal tool heads in the direction where interactive (behavioral) > prototypes intertwine with annotations and data binding schemas. > > The discussion then focused on the need for annotations and I stressed > quite strongly that a prototype without annotations is not valuable > enough.. > > I may not be meeting you all the way here, but I'm not as far away as > my original strong statements that you (respectfully) disagreed with > conveyed. > > :) > > - dave > > <thought> > Let's forget the conference program ... Let's just set up 2 hour > rotating periods where invited and accepted speakers facilitate > discussion on topics that need solving, this is so much more fun! > </thought> > > On 10/31/07, Dave Cronin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess I have to respectfully disagree with here. >> >> A fully coded prototype of a highly interactive interface can be >> incredibly difficult to deconstruct. If there is some complex >> business >> logic underlying the interaction (especially something that learns >> from >> user behavior), it can be quite laborious to understand the >> underlying >> rules at the level of fidelity necessary for creating shipping code. >> >> There is certainly a place for interactive prototypes, but there is >> also >> a place for the well-written sentence. >> >> My experience with engineers is that are they avoid documents that >> don't >> answer their questions or are difficult to navigate and understand. >> >> If a programmer is unwilling to engage with succinct and clearly >> articulated documentation (with good use of text & graphics), my >> experience is that they have other problems and are sandbagging. >> >> -dave >> >>> David Malouf said: >>> >>> I have found that the only true artifact a developer >>> understands is coded interactive prototype. W/o one there is >>> always ambiguity left for "cultural" interpretation. >>> >> > > > -- > David Malouf > http://synapticburn.com/ > http://ixda.org/ > http://motorola.com/ > ________________________________________________________________ > *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* > February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA > Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ > > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help ________________________________________________________________ *Come to IxDA Interaction08 | Savannah* February 8-10, 2008 in Savannah, GA, USA Register today: http://interaction08.ixda.org/ ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://gamma.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://gamma.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://gamma.ixda.org/help
