On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel <li...@toddwarfel.com> wrote: > I think one of they keys here is that Andrei's perspective on prototyping is > very different from the majority. That's not to say it's strictly right or > wrong, but I find it a bit myopic, narrow, and shortsighted. It seems to be > very 37signals—this is the way we do it and it's really the only way that > matters.
Hi Todd, I'm probably the polar opposite of Andrei's "if it don't move, it ain't a prototype" view... to me, if it is a representation of a concept used for communication purposes, then it's a prototype. To avoid confusing people, I usually apply the word only to visual constructs - wireframes, whitesites, pixel-perfect Photoshop masterpieces, three lines scrawled on the back of a napkin, architectural blueprints, a storyboard that illustrates a process flow. If it's a thing that shows stuff, rather than being stuff itself, then it's a prototype - regardless of what I might use to create it. I grant that Andrei's mileage may vary. Best regards, Andrew -- --- Andrew Boyd http://uxaustralia.com.au -- UX Australia Conference Canberra 2009 http://uxbookclub.org -- connect, read, discuss http://govux.org -- the government user experience forum http://resilientnationaustralia.org Resilient Nation Australia ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... disc...@ixda.org Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
