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
While the discussion on this list about vocabulary shows that we have
different views of common terms, the words you use in organizations
can have powerful effects since words like "design" and "prototype"
are often loaded terms (think companies where developers think that
they are the "designers"
Oh, for...
This will probably surprise a lot of you, but I don't actually care
what we take "prototype" to mean, vs. model vs. sketch vs
whatever. I get my panties in a bunch when people claim a commonality
of understanding of a word, when that commonality clearly isn't
extant. Hence
Just some snippets of definitions of "prototype":
“…An easily changeable draft or simulation of at least part of the
interface” (Hackos & Redish, 1998, p. 376)
"Prototypes" are representations of a design made before final
artifacts exist. (Buchenau & Suri, 2000)
“Tangible speculation” (Robert G
On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:48 PM, Will Evans wrote:
does it really matter what websters or the OED defines as a prototype
Not sure how much Webster's definition applies, since that appears to
focus primarily on physical object prototypes rather than software
system prototypes. Perhaps they shou
also -
does it really matter what websters or the OED defines as a prototype
- what matters is the proper conveyance of information within a
community of practice, that is, Interaction Designers. We no doubt
need it when discussing something, which no doubt will be something
totally differ
no doubt this will come down to a DTDT, Todd, but people will come
forward with examples of how they used a sketch to test something
(structure of info, for instance); or labels and call it a prototype
whereas we all know you can't test behavior with a sketch - and
therein lies the rub. It
I'd call that a bucket test. Now, if you'd put together some lower
level pages that go beyond that top level nav to let people actually
explore the pieces underneath and see how they interact with it, then
I'd say w/o question you've got a prototype.
On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:34 PM, Adrian Howar
There are different types of prototypes and a sketch can, for example,
be used to illustrate a prototype of a visual or layout style or even
suggest interaction. Buxton makes a big point about sketches not
being prototypes (see pages 138-141) in his recent book on Sketching
though his chart on pag
On 7 Mar 2009, at 18:38, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
Explain to me how a one page sketch can be a prototype? A concept,
sure. But a prototype?
The point of a prototype is to communicate a design concept and see
how it works. You can't really see/show how something works with
just one sketch.
Explain to me how a one page sketch can be a prototype? A concept,
sure. But a prototype?
The point of a prototype is to communicate a design concept and see
how it works. You can't really see/show how something works with just
one sketch.
On Mar 6, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Jordan, Courtney wrot
Hi list
Since this thread is about the nature of prototypes, I might push for
a paper I wrote with some colleagues on the topic. It was published in
ToCHI last summer. You can download it here
http://www.box.net/shared/static/6cg0s7crjh.pdf
it is called "The Anatomy of Prototypes"
Best
Erik
Good lord this thread has just devolved into an embarrassment! (and
whatever happened to Saffer's admonition--no more tedious endless
definition threads!)
For the last time: http://www.ghostinthepixel.com/?p=130
And if you're still that confused about wireframes (and mockups) vs
prototypes, well
On Mar 6, 2009, at 9:42 AM, Katie Albers wrote:
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
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 stud
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.
exactly. If it is not something that a user can actually engage with,
then its a sketch, or wireframe or picture. If there is no beha
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 t
h-fidelity prototype.
Courtney Jordan
-Original Message-
From: discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.interactiondesigners.com] On Behalf Of
Todd Zaki Warfel
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 7:32 PM
To: Mary Deaton
Cc: list IXDA
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] P
Hi Todd,
to clarify: a prototype shall be a series of representations of a
screen or screens?
Best regards, Andrew
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
> I series of storyboards could be used in the prototyping process, but I
> wouldn't necessarily call it a prototype. That'
I series of storyboards could be used in the prototyping process, but
I wouldn't necessarily call it a prototype. That's one of those grey
areas.
On Mar 5, 2009, at 3:45 PM, Mary Deaton wrote:
In Todd's definition, a storyboard can be a prototype, but a one-page
mock-up cannot be. Right?
In Todd's definition, a storyboard can be a prototype, but a one-page
mock-up cannot be. Right?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Adrian Howard wrote:
>
> On 2 Mar 2009, at 12:46, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> In other words, while a single static element cannot be a prototype, a
>> series
On 2 Mar 2009, at 12:46, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
[snip]
In other words, while a single static element cannot be a prototype,
a series of them that represent the changes in state of a system
(e.g. begin point and end point) can be a prototype.
[snip]
Y'know that reminds me of Scott McCloud's
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Andrew Boyd wrote:
to me, if it is a representation of a concept used for communication
purposes, then it's a prototype.
While I hold a fairly liberal definition of a prototype, it's not that
liberal. I define a prototype as a representative simulation of a
fi
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 (
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel 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 3
A timely piece by David Cronin of Cooper for Adobe:
http://tr.im/gUM6
(Shhh! its on prototyping!)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the new ixda.org
http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=39316
_
I'm staying out of the fray of this really stupid thread and sticking
with the first question.
Andrei, for embedded computing please also consider adding arduino
and similar board-level prototyping methods. But often embedded
software interacts with non software interfaces. So being able to
protot
There are a couple ways to approach contract design work ( a studio
or agency working from the outside of the firm or client) and thus
protoyping.
In the first, you actually put the client, or someone from the client
firm on the design team as a product manager and as a proxie
contributor
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 onl
On Mar 1, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
Sorry... I'm just going to have to disagree. The skills are
specifically hand coding HTML/CSS/JavaScript and if not C++, then
things like ActionScript.
Then in your opinion, no prototype other than one that involves coding
should be c
Adrian, well said.
On Mar 1, 2009, at 4:17 AM, Adrian Howard wrote:
[..]
Cheers!
Todd Zaki Warfel
President, Design Researcher
Messagefirst | Designing Information. Beautifully.
--
Contact Info
Voice: (215) 825-7423
Email: t...@messagefirst.com
AIM:twar
Another thing that's not being considered here is that prototyping
happens with or without an Interaction Designer. There are Product
Managers, Business Analysts, Visual Designers, Usability Engineers,
etc that are prototyping and doing it very effectively without writing
a single line of H
On Mar 1, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:21 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
The tools these days by and large are still crap. Further, so many
people in this field refuse to learn how to draw or spec type, so
I'm not sure how well a survey of the field is goi
On Mar 1, 2009, at 12:16 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
Are you suggesting that testing the behavior of a slider control
with a paper prototype is better than a fully interactive one done
on JavaScript?
More effective? That depends. I can build an interactive slider
control with less time
On 1 Mar 2009, at 05:16, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
[snip]
Now, are those methods "bad" or "wrong." No. They are merely
acceptable. I use them all of the time.
Why? According to your scale paper prototypes - for example - are
_always_ worse than HTML/JS. alternatives. Are there other dimen
I would make it so you could toggle the grid so along with selecting a
platform and seeing the overview you would also be able to select your
performance criteria and the tech package would present itself to you
directing you to the tools and resources based on your decision.
jQuery rules.
On Feb 28, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Adam Korman wrote:
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 reaso
I don't think Andrei's chart was implying making one prototype; but, rather
using one group of technologies for as many prototypes as you want for
specific platforms giving a broad overview of their effectiveness along with
tools and resources to do so. I think what tools and resources go with what
On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:14 PM, Adam Korman wrote:
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
On Feb 28, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
While it is personal opinion, it has been my experience. I encourage
you to go create a counter argument, and I'll even point to it from
the page as a countering opinion.
I can't say I personally agree with a number of your assessments
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
On Feb 28, 2009, at 6:49 AM, Jeremy Kriegel wrote:
Having been one for many years, I know that there is a tendency
towards 'certainty' in consulting. It's reassuring to clients, who
may get nervous with an 'it depends' approach.
And as a small side note: The point of the interactivity of the
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,
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.
Having been one for many years, I know that there is a tendency
towards 'certainty' in consulting. It
Superb.
Professional & elegant. Very clean.
Excellent use of technology to convey the message.
The layout is solid as well as the code.
I really like the use of color and the sketched icons.
I like how the dots fall to marginal for flash and silverlight, lol.
Good job.
iRise, I just evaluated
I'm interested in fleshing out some more detail for the following:
http://make.involutionstudios.com/conceptcar/
I'm looking to add more tools + resources links and am seeking out
things I've missed in the process to make sure the list is as thorough
as possible. For example I know Scriptabul
46 matches
Mail list logo
