[Sigia-l] your'e invited- ART OF THE PROPOSAL- NYC

[Andrew Hinton]

::listera at rcn.com::wrote on 10/31/02 1:13 PM:

> "Andrew Hinton" wrote:
> 
>> It's true that the experience of the information environment isn't "real"
>> until it's a clickable prototype with all the bells, whistles, dogs &
>> ponies. 
> 
> I haven't said that. Information cannot really be consumed without an
> interface. That doesn't mean, however, that it has to come with "all the
> bells, whistles, dogs & ponies." That's a choice, not a necessity. There are
> many different "levels" of prototypes, with varying degrees of
> functionality, depth, sizzle, etc., for different constituencies, presented
> at appropriate milestones.
> 

So, what's the difference between between a shallow, less-sizzly, high-level
prototype and a wireframe? I think we may be talking about the same thing.
In my experience, wireframes can be paper based or they can be clickable
black&white screens with no decoration. It's a slippery term. Hell, we've
even ended up with very granular prototypes that are iteratively evolved
wireframes, and we just forget to stop calling them wireframes and start
calling them prototypes. I guess without an example to point at, it's tough
for us to even have this discussion.

>> But waiting until you have a complete prototype before getting
>> approval or feedback from the client or users is just dumb.
> 
> Take this example, for instance. The poster, instead of saying prototyping
> can be "generally inadvisable" (wireframe), comes right out and says it's
> "just dumb" (prototype), under fabricated conditions. There's no ambiguity
> and "imaginative work on the part of the user" is not required, which is
> good. This way I can ascertain more quickly how wrong the poster was.
> 
I, the poster in question, didn't say prototyping is dumb. I said that
skipping all the other steps and going straight to high-fidelity prototyping
is dumb. Prototyping = good. Skipping = dumb.

>> For this latter set, it's fine to just do all the work then ceremonially
>> unveil it, but that invites huge risk ("Um, we don't like it, please start
>> over; the deadline doesn't change though.")
> 
> There doesn't have to be any ceremony. Prototyping does not have to be a
> laborious, resource-hogging, all-or-nothing exercise in futility. It can be
> very fast, flexible and responsive. (There have been several discussions
> here on prototyping, so I refer you to my earlier remarks, in the archives.)

Yeah, prototyping ROCKS. I, the poster in question, am in full agreement.
This whole discussion arose from your assertion earlier that "wireframes are
for wussies" -- whereas I and others think that wireframes are excellent,
but only in context with a whole iterative, collaborative design workflow
that includes prototypes, user research and testing, scenarios and the like,
and whatever other tools are appropriate for a particular job. Same for
prototypes (whatever we may mean by that term -- which varies WIDELY).


--
andrew ("always a poster, never a poster boy")
www.memekitchen.com