I'll try to put some concrete feedback around the basic criticism.
Because of the criteria you've chosen, the chart has a bias in favor
of prototyping using the tools that are the same (or closest) to how
the product will eventually be built. Tools that are the same or
similar to what will be used to build the final product always score
the best, and there's a drop-off whether you use more or less
sophisticated tools. By this measure, the chart shows that there's
never a good reason to create a paper prototype or click-through
screenshots. In fact, by choosing the term "Acceptable" as the middle
rating, you are suggesting that paper and click-throughs are always
unacceptable prototyping methods (because their average rating in all
cases is less than "acceptable").
I think there are two important criteria that might start to balance
things out: (a) degree of specialized skills required to develop the
prototype and (b) level of effort to build and maintain the prototype.
If you have to hire someone to build prototypes, that may not be an
acceptable investment to get "optimal" results.
That said, I still think there's a bigger problem with the slant in
favor of reusability. It's been my experience that the more time and
effort you invest in a realistic, reusable prototype, the more of a
vested interest you have in believing that you already have the right
answer. In other words, if you've spent a lot of time creating assets
(graphics, code, behavior) that you expect to reuse in the final
product, the more attached you become to those assets. When there is
no expectation that the assets for the prototype will be reused,
development of the prototype is faster and it's easier to toss things
out that are wrong or don't work as expected.
Now if you already know you're right, a hyper-realistic prototype with
reusable code and graphic assets may be useful. This brings up an
important missing piece from the chart, which is any discussion of the
goal of creating the prototype and how different mediums may be more
or less appropriate for different goals. If your goal is to test
overall concepts, I think this chart is totally misleading. If the
goal is to test if your concepts are possible given the technology,
the chart seems more reasonable.
-Adam
On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Jeremy Kriegel wrote:
Interesting chart, but I think it is a gross oversimplification of
the
utility and applicability of tools. There are valid situations where
the reality is diametrically opposed to your evaluation.
Unless you have something specific in retort, then I think you just
did what you are accusing me of. I'm open to feedback or hearing
countering opinions even if it doesn't necessarily change my mind,
but making a blanket statement about what claim is a blanket
statements doesn't seem very useful.
________________________________________________________________
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
