Well, Webster's has this to say about it: "Pro"to*type\, n. ... An
original or model after which anything is copied; the pattern of
anything to be engraved, or otherwise copied, cast, or the like; a
primary form; exemplar; archetype." Whereas a mock-up is "a model,
often full-size, for study, testing, or teaching: a mock-up of an
experimental aircraft" according to Random House. Comparing the two
leads me to believe that the prototype would necessarily exist before
the mock-up.
Interestingly: The page of dictionary.com where these were found
contains an ad for a Rapid Prototyping tool called MockupScreens.
And there aren't 20 words for snow in Inuit. First of all, the Inuit
speak multiple languages, so it isn't a rational datum. Secondly, the
linguistic structure of most of those languages is such that "number
of words" equating to any single word in English is impossible.
Thirdly, English has snow, sleet, drift, blizzard, flurry, slush,
powder, flakes. You can say that those all mean slightly different
things, and that is both true and important; but it does not mean that
having 8 words for snow is a measure of how important it is in our
culture; that theory has been long abandoned by linguists.
Yes it is, I believe, true to distinguish between a pre-complete
entity that functions and a pre-complete entity that doesn't (and no,
I didn't mean "incomplete"), but that doesn't mean that mock-up and
prototype have /ab initio/ been defined to mean those things. There's
actually evidence that in other, analogous, fields, the reverse is true.
So, while no one is a bigger fan of careful definition than I, I
believe it's a mistake to assume that everyone who doesn't agree with
you on which is which is fundamentally in error. We need to come to a
common understanding of these terms, but it is NOT the case that there
*was* a common understanding which has been breached.
kt
Katie Albers
Founder & Principal Consultant
FirstThought
User Experience Strategy & Project Management
310 356 7550
ka...@firstthought.com
On Mar 6, 2009, at 6:41 AM, 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.
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.
Ya know there is a reason why there are 20 words for "snow" in
Intuit/Eskimo. Sometimes, being discreet allows for more accurate
communication. The mass rush to generalize everything in the UX
community is really becoming annoying.
-- dave
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=39316
________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________
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
