What's the consensus here, (median agreement maybe)? Prototypes are good and useful, in certain circumstances? User testing is good and useful, for novices and novelties?
I use prototypes every day, (I call them prototypes, and haven't had any misunderstanding with what they are except by inference in posts like this, (OK sometimes clients think they actually work, but they can be educated otherwise)). Prototypes help me in a multitude of ways such as: Detailing interaction of Requirements thru a GUI, (which aides the requirements definition) Presenting to stakeholders what they're going to get, (aides in buy in and feedback) Testing artifact for User testing, (User testing is good for a number of reasons, one being that you just never know how your target user is going to react to a design, without seeing it) Describing to engineering what to build, (engineers like screens and dislike long documents) Detailing to QA what to test Documenting what was built in a release Also the prototypes are used as a sales tool, and as a baseline for further rapid prototyping. I've worked with only documentation as well, it just doesn't seem to be as well accepted. I can't imagine the "Most Experienced" Interaction Designer "Not" being aided with prototyping. Who is this omnipotent individual that knows exactly what to design, besides when designing the most trivial products, (Ok I guess they could have equivalency with just documentation, but I still think prototypes are often a better solution)? -- Joseph Rich Rogan President UX/UI Inc. http://www.jrrogan.com ________________________________________________________________ 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
