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.
There's an interesting report in 2005 ( http://www.usability.gov/pubs/062005news.html) reviewing research into the effectiveness of low-fi (paper) v. hi-fi (software) protoypes. Dr. Bob Bailey concludes that "[i]n other words, low-fidelity prototypes appear to be as effective as high-fidelity prototypes at detecting many types of usability issues.", though he then goes on to discuss circumstances where hi-fi is preferable. As a software developer I always preferred doing code prototypes, but I'm finding the arguments for sketching very persuasive - I've seen a whole lot of over-commitment and premature lock-in to prototypes, and on one grimly ironic occasion I was even sent out to maintain a horribly under-designed system that had been developed years earlier as a prototype in a workshop by my own trainees. Can anyone tell me if the article is a valid summary of the research, now or then? Francis. ________________________________________________________________ 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
