On 6 Mar 2009, at 06:41, David Malouf wrote:
I really feel you folks are confusing mock-up with prototype.
IMHO, if I can't use it, it ain't a prototype. Maybe, human as
computer paper-prototypes fit the bill, but otherwise, a series of
screens, are mock-ups and an interactive click-through is a
prototype.
I'm certainly thinking of a human in the loop when we're talking about
paper prototypes. Otherwise there isn't any behaviour to observe.
The distinction is important b/c the line lets us know what level of
data we can achieve from each. Otherwise, if everything is a
prototype there is no means of discerning when to use what tool when
in what part of the process.
Except by talking about the advantages and disadvantages of different
tools in different contexts?
Calling something a prototype, or a mock up, or a wireframe, or
whatever doesn't help much. I think this thread shows that different
folk have very different definitions.
Saying something works badly or well without giving enough information
about the context where that something works badly or well seems
fairly pointless to me.
There are situations where paper prototype works really, really badly.
There are situations where putting together a quick HTML/Javascript
click-through is a huge over-commitment that will only slow
development down. There are situations where a hi-fidelity functional
prototype is the only thing that will answer our questions.
I'm probably as guilt as this as anybody, but we need to be talking
more about _where_ paper prototypes, hi-fi prototypes, man-behind-the-
curtain demos, etc., etc. work (or not as the case may be).
And less time arguing definitions :-)
Ya know there is a reason why there are 20 words for "snow" in
Intuit/Eskimo.
[snip]
And just to prove what an annoying pendant I can be.... there aren't
20 words for "snow" in "Eskimo". Or at least it has nothing to do with
them living in a snowy environment and having to make finer
definitions that an English speaker :-)
The "Eskimo" languages are polysynthetic - where words and word-
boundaries are not as clear cut as a they are in English and European
languages. So the "Eskimo" for - say "thick snow" (not real example)
can look like a separate word - when it's actually a regularly formed
construct of several smaller morphemes ("snow" modified by "thick").
I seem to recall being told that if you juggle your definitions
appropriately you can get English having more snow related words -
because we have lots of different words for snow concepts (avalanche,
sleet, powder, etc.) that would be expressed by a single common "snow"
morpheme in the "Eskimo" languages with appropriate modifications.
I'm sure googling around will get you more detail than my hazy memory
from the year of linguistics I did back at uni :-)
Cheers,
Adrian
________________________________________________________________
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
