With all due respect... This over simplifies the scope and complexity of software as it continues to increases in complexity and purpose. Obviously, prototyping to discern whether a drop down or a series of radio buttons works best is no longer necessary, but determining work flow, with interactions, plus user goals and context of use is not a simple matter of the designer resourcing past experience. n to the power of four. Can we really predict the response to this many variables?
Prototypes are no doubt created where non are needed. But all to often assumptions and best guesses are made that need to be validated with the user's involvement. Following this direction (certainly at its extreme) is dangerously close to pushing designers to 'inmate' status. This direction as a prescription for interaction designers is appropriate for only the most schooled and experience of practitioners. My immediate response to this is a fear of yet more of the same... only from the (trusted) guardians of users and ease-of- use. A heaping helping of caution seems appropriate. If more interaction designers were the beneficiaries of seeing and fully understanding your work Alan, along with that of Jared, Peter, Jesse, etc... this would be sage advice. But this profession is still young (as are most of the practitioners) and lacking a common and pervasive knowledge set that would allow this sort of liberty. I hope we get there soon, but I think it will be a bit. Still, I am glad that you are pushing. Mark On Feb 13, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Alan Cooper wrote: > Dave, > > I'm currently taking a welding class. To learn how to weld, I am > making lines of weld-bead on sheets of scrap aluminum. This is a very > useful pedagogic device. > > After a couple of years of practice and training (assuming I were a > young person making a career out of welding), I'd go into the world > as a > journeyman welder. I would never, ever make lines of weld-bead on > sheets > of aluminum again, since it has virtually no practical purpose. > > About two-thirds of the need for prototyping is as an equivalent, > pedagogic tool. Young interaction designer trainees need to see how > humans react to their designs, and prototypes are an excellent tool > for > that. Once you've learned how humans react, you no longer really > need to > actually, physically test your designs. Your experience will tell you > just as dependably. > > The other third of the need for prototyping is for invention, a very > rare occurrence. Invention means pure, new, never-before-seen modes of > behavior. A couple of years ago, for example, I was working on an > email > program where individual conversations (threads) were represented by > icon-like images. Those images were "orbited" by related messages, > images, files, correspondents and other relevant information. Nothing > like this had ever been done before, so prototyping was appropriate. > > But please understand that invention is not the same thing as > design. > Prototyping is useful in invention, but its role isn't for design as > much as it is for raw exploration of the subject matter before > design is > even necessary. Such a prototype would then be used as a guide for > subsequent design (on paper, not in code). > > Historically, software comes from a world rich in invention, and the > enormous egos in the software business still imagine that invention > dominates. Most programmers and most interaction designers think that > they are inventing when they are creating yet another eCommerce > website. > The cries for and claims of innovation are evidence of that. But the > overwhelming quantity of what I see in the world of software today > simply isn't invention but is the basic block-and-tackle, > three-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust form and behavior design like we all > learned in school or on the job. Their users are consumers or business > people doing simple, business or personal tasks using well established > idioms, typically implemented using off-the-shelf components > arranged in > very conventional ways. Recent "innovations" such as YouTube and even > Crowdvine simply don't show any interaction innovation. Good, solid, > workmanlike design, yes; prototype worthy innovation, no. > > Before interaction design gained its contemporary respect, old- > school > HCI practitioners claimed emphatically to me, "I learned so much > when I > did user testing!" Of course you did. You never had any design > training > so it was a complete shock to you when you saw how humans reacted to > software. Today, it is unconscionable for a professional interaction > designer to NEED to user test anything but the most advanced, obscure, > never-before-seen interaction. And prototyping is very time and money > intensive, particularly so when compared to what well trained > designers > can do with a couple of 90-minute interviews and a whiteboard. > > Please remember that prototype code is subject to the law of fools: > they see it and they think you can SHIP IT! And then WE are stuck > with a > commitment to a non-optimal strategy. Why take that risk? > > You know, I don't really care anymore whether or not interaction > designers prototype or not. I took a clear and bold and absolute stand > against prototyping 15 years ago to make a point: that we can do good > design without code. This was a necessary decoupling to allow the > profession of interaction design to separate, differentiate, and > elevate > ourselves away from programming. > > Well, we've accomplished that goal, as Interaction08 proved beyond a > doubt. And now that we are indeed separate, different, and elevated, > there isn't a big downside to prototyping. Mainly it's like using a > sledgehammer to kill a fly. If it floats your boat, go for it! > > The next big battle we are going to have to fight is the one to stay > ahead of the Agile folks. They mean well, and agile makes programmers > happy, and managers LOVE to hear that the programmers are happy. But > Agile is a terrible tool for software production, even if it's a > pretty > good tool for software design engineering. We need to communicate this > indispensable difference. Let's all stay focused on the big prize. > > Thanx, > Alan > > ________________________________________________________________ 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
