Andrei, I think there is merit to your point, but your retort was well a bit off-base and jumped to a lot of conclusions.
First off, I think there are various states of "new". I can't talk about what I'm working on now, but it is new, in the sense that well it is using a technology in a novel way for a distinct user-base. >From a design tool perspective (not proof of concept of technology, and not validating usability), I believe that my experience with computers, technology, human beings, and interaction design gives me a strong sense of what it is like to use something. In fact, a big part of my research has been to find existing models of related interaction designs, and evaluate them. Even before I begin playing with the released products, I know so much about them, and can readily evaluate the designs. I'm not saying there isn't anything ever new under the sun and I agree it would be boring if it was true, but I do think that our skills as pattern recognizers goes a long way towards being able to analyze our own designs without having to build them out completely. What I do think we need is similar to the flip books of an animation studio, where we take small pieces, and evaluate them separate from the whole in order to make decisions. while this is a type of prototype, it is not quite the holistic model, and definitely lower fidelity than doing a complete prototype. -- dave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=25888 ________________________________________________________________ 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
