On Nov 12, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote: > It's not that your view is so controversial, but rather that you're > contracting yourself, but refuse to either admit that you are, or > admit that prototypes don't need to be pixel-perfect, or that pixel- > perfection isn't a necessary requirement.
I'm not contradicting myself. I feel software prototypes do require those things so I feel no need to admit otherwise, regardless of how much you dislike that point of view. If there's no time or no budget, one makes do, but no way and no how is some sort of sketch or even fully realized Photoshop screenshot mockup a prototype of a software product that inherently requires interaction as a core component of its overall design. > BTW, rendering pixels on a screen doesn't constitute pixel-perfect. This is why you seem to think I'm contradicting myself. Your definition of "pixel perfect" is apparently not the same as mine. To me, when I present a software prototype to someone, and also present the real product, and if they can't tell the difference visually between the two, that's "pixel perfect." Even better when the prototype behaves in a way that makes people think it's the real deal as well. > Rendering pixels on a screen is just that. Pixel-perfect is pixel- > perfect—an exact duplicate in every single way. And prototypes are > not an exact duplicate in every single way. They are a simulation > of the vision for the final product and should mimic it, but are > rarely, if ever, an exact duplicate in every single way—especially > in software. And this is again where we disagree. But please stop saying I'm off base or contradicting myself when I'm doing no such thing. I'm just saying something that you obviously disagree with at a definition level. That doesn't make me wrong or you right or vice versa. > Prototypes are meant to communicate the original intent, the > concept, the vision of a design or interaction. I'll post the same Henry Dreyfuss quote I did a few months back: ----- Too much emphasis cannot be placed on the importance of three- dimensional models. We come to this step after we have analyzed and evaluated hundreds of designs and blueprints, trying to bring some quality to the product that will make it easier to use without increasing the cost, more pleasant to look at without any drastic changes in the factory routine. When our ideas have been formulated, we design in clay, then plaster, finally in a material that will simulate the material to be used in manufacturing the actual product. Wherever possible, such models are done in full size. In developing the exterior of a train or a ship, accurate scale models must suffice. The cost of a model is more than compensated for by future savings. It not only presents an accurate picture of the product for the executives, but it also gives the toolmakers and production men an opportunity to criticize and to present manufacturing problems. Models of some products can be made for a few hundred dollars. Full- scale models of ship or train interiors can cost many thousands of dollars. A mock-up of a modern passenger airplane cabin may cost $150,000 but it will be worth it, for it permits engineers and designers to develop techniques of installation that would not be otherwise possible. Furthermore, sales executives can bring potential customers into a faithful, full scale fuselage to see what it offers, long before production begins. ***It is far more effective to sit in a chair that judge its comfort by a picture of it.*** [Emphasis added] Henry Dreyfuss, Designing for People, 61-62. ----- Of course the prototype is meant to communicate the final design. But why do you think Dreyfuss says that's its more effective to sit in a chair than judge its comfort by a picture of it? And the really important part of that quote is that in the high-tech industry, the thing that has prevented us from doing what ever other design profession does as a base part of their design process is time and money. It's not that the prototyping is only useful some of the time or whatever other reason is tossed out there. If given the time and money, building a real prototype will *ALWAYS* be better than any other design deliverable. Why? Because sitting in a chair is more effective to judge how comfortable it is than looking at a picture of it. > They're for simulation and communication. They're for working > through a design. And as such, they are typically not going to be a > pixel-perfect production, but rather a representation of what > you're trying to accomplish in the final product. I would argue that the reason for this has largely been a technological one and an issue of not enough people in our field getting hands on with the design of the product by building a prototype themselves. > Additionally, it's very common to prototype pieces of the product > as you're working your way through the design. Can they be pixel > perfect? Absolutely. Are they? Not very often. For you they may not be. For me, that's all I push for anymore. The technology is sufficient enough that building what I call pixel perfect prototypes for software or digital products is not a barrier anymore like it used to be. The only barrier is the education a lot of us have to do to code Javascript, Actionscript or any other scripting language that provides front-end interaction. For visuals, Photoshop+Illustrator or Fireworks is plenty, and XHTML is very easy to get a handle on for web based stuff. Flash or Director for desktop client prototypes is a little more involved, but not at all out of reach. That barrier is a small price to pay to regain control of the final end design of our products. > Think about all the prototypes that have been made over the years > in industrial design and architecture. Most of them were not pixel > perfect prototypes—especially in architecture, they're scale > models. In architecture, they build from drawings. In software, we > often build from either drawings, a written documents, prototypes, > or a combination. So, we have overlap with other industries and > some uniqueness to our own situation. How is a scale model, one that is also attempting to reflect the look of the materials used, the environment (even the trees!), the size and scale, and all those pieces not a hi-fidelity prototype? The scale models I used to build for set design in the theater, which is far more budget restrictive than any profession I've ever been in since, were quite detailed down to the paint and look of it. In fact, no set was ever built until the scale model was approved by the director. And when the final piece was built, it had to look exactly the like the scale model. As for industrial design, most professional firms do build scale models and do everything possible to make their prototypes as real as they can given time and budget. I know of no ID firms that do not have that as an integral part of their design process. > But prototypes it's very easy to see that prototypes do not have to > be and rarely are pixel-perfect. Obviously, I disagree. -- Andrei Herasimchuk Principal, Involution Studios innovating the digital world e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] c. +1 408 306 6422 ________________________________________________________________ *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://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
