Fred, thanks for the elaborate answer!
Fred Beecher wrote: > > You're not looking for the customer's opinion during early-stage > prototyping. You're trying to find out if the interaction design & IA > works > or not, which is something you can observe during testing. If you're doing > later stage prototyping, then the more nuanced aspects of experience > become > more important. So this point is not valid for early stage prototyping but > somewhat valid for late stage prototyping. > I called the guy's attention to this point, but he said that there's never anything so greatly innovative that is capable of making the entire hi-fi prototype invalid, and the minor corrections can be made directly in the hi-fi prototype. They do inject new stuff and give old stuff refreshed look, but after years of practice, they developed typical solutions for most of things. So actually they skip the "early-stage" prototyping entirely. I don't know if this is a good practice or bad practice, but it sounds reasonable and I wonder how many people do exactly like this. Can you give an example when early stage prototyping is required? Just a thought: Paradoxically, the more innovative an interaction is, the more rapid prototyping is needed, but the less the rapid tools are capable, because they are based on predefined widgets. And in reverse, the more standard an interaction is, the less is the need to do rapid prototyping of it, and the more readily the ability to do so is available in the rapid tools. Fred Beecher wrote: > > Erm. When you do all this at once, you actually *save* time. Since the > beginning of my career I have advocated for prototyping, but only when I > discovered and started using Axure was I able to actually do it. Why? > Because the wireframes (which I would do anyway) *were* the prototype. > Yes, > it takes a *little* extra time to make your wireframes interactive, but > WAY > less time than it would take to manage an entirely separate prototyping > process. > I agree exactly. Here Axure makes a good point. Perhaps the best of all its points. However, isn't it somewhat lacking the freedom of drawing, like in Visio or Omnigraffle, not to mention pixel-perfect tools like Photoshop? What my friend obviously means is that once they have a special guy for building hi-fi HTML prototypes, he doesn't want to spend his own precious time to implement interactivity in the prototypes. He is done with just annotated wireframes in Visio. Fred Beecher wrote: > > Also, it seems like your colleague believes that the prototype should > evolve > into the code. In most cases, this is absolutely NOT the way to go. Trying > to make the prototype with code of the quality required to be launched > would > slow down the process and make it much less useful. > No, he'd agree with you. Prototypes are a throw-away. Though they can be reused in other projects. :) Oleg. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-do-your-prototypes-look-like--tp17604307p17625703.html Sent from the ixda.org - discussion list mailing list archive at Nabble.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
