RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE: [interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the next generation)

28 Oct 2003 - 8:25am
11 years ago
2 replies
1229 reads
vutpakdi
2003

--- Peter Bagnall <pete at surfaceeffect.com> wrote:
>[...]
> There seems to be an acceptance by people that short time scales are
> inevitable. I'd like to push back against that. To produce something
> really
> good does take time and effort. If we accept ever shorter timescales
> then,
> as a profession, we're selling out. One of the roles for a professional
> group, in my opinion, is to advocate better design practice to the other
> professions we interact with. But the point I'm really making is that,
> yes
> we need to be flexible with process, but not with quality.

I would agree that to produce something really good takes time and effort.
Now, at the same time, is it better to adapt ourselves to the conditions in
which we find ourselves or is it better to draw a line in the sand and risk
being shunted completely aside? I believe that we usually work with
organizations and clients that are not mature/wise with regards to design
and usability. As a result of this immaturity and inexperience, being
inflexible ends up being counterproductive.

We need to educate, advocate, and lead. At the same time, how we do that
and what we do needs to match the maturity of the organization and the
situation or we run the risk of having *no* impact at all if we aren't
included. It's usually easier to draw, nudge, and lead a horse along than
trying to drag it where it doesn't want to go, and I've found that the same
is true with people/organizations.

Ron

=====
============================================================================
Ron Vutpakdi
vutpakdi at acm.org

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

Comments

27 Oct 2003 - 10:09am
Dave Malouf
2005

(just a simple reply, so that to continue the thread people can reply here.)

Its funny that you think Visio is too high fidelity and my problem is that
it is too low and that "sketches" that are on paper don't show behavior and
isn't this what we are designing more than anything else?

-- dave

_____

From: Joshua Seiden [mailto:joshseiden at yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:02 AM
To: interactionarchitects at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE: [interactionarchitects] Re:
process ... the next generation)

Of course there is no single correct approach. As you
and others note, we need to be able to pick our
techniques according to context, and with some
awareness of the strength and weakness of the approach.

Some comments:

> the car model: First off, earliest prototypes
> are done in model format that obviously can't
> be translated into final form factor, but there
> is the "concept car" which is a full working
> prototype, no?" And many other cars are done
> in fully functional final renditions before
> being given to the factory to build.

Concept cars are often made of clay, fiberglass, etc.
Even the full sized ones. Concept cars don't need to
run, because manufacturers typically build on just a
handful of platforms. They are used to elicit feedback
at auto shows--all they have to do is look good with a
supermodel draped over the hood. Platform development
is another thing entirely, of course.

Here's an interesting overview:
http://www.cybersteering.com/cruise/feature/concept/con
cept.html

> I hate paper prototypes. I have to say that
> they just don't work for me. I have been
> working in visio for a decade now (so it feels)
> and all these paper prototypes just NEVER get
> the reaction that I require. It is almost
> impossible to really understand reactions to
> behavior but instead all I get is people
> focussing on labels and coloring (yes, they
> don't like that its black and white). People
> don't get paper prototypes.

Going back to Buxton's comments about sketches, there
are two relevant points here:
--sketches need to be just detailed enough for the
problem at hand
--sketches use specific language and vocabulary to
indicate that they are sketches.

I have never liked Visio, because the results are too
detailed visually. I don't want to use a polished
visual presentation in the early stages of my thinking,
(ie, when I'm thinking about behavior) because that
would indicate a level of finish that is inappropriate
at that stage.

It's important to note that "paper prototypes" can have
a variety of fidelity levels. Paper prototypes can be
low-fi, medium-fi, or even hi-fi. They can even have a
combination of fidelity levels at the same time. (Low
interaction fidelity, medium visual fidelity, for
example.) Just because it's paper, doesn't mean that
it's lo-fi.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050077
09:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3050
9&media=atkins> click here

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1706996/rand=828863890>

Web site: www.interactiondesigners.com

Unsubscribe: interactionarchitects-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20031027/47578196/attachment.html

27 Oct 2003 - 10:49am
Peter Bagnall
2003

(this is more a reply to the thread rather than David's comments, just
didn't want to revert to the yahoogroup)

Going off at a tangent slightly...

The car example though is in a very different world to us. To get a car
design to the point where it can be mass produced is a fraction of the
final cost of each car. Most of the cost is manufacturing, so no one
resents the investment, quite the reverse, since investment upfront makes
the probability of tooling up to build a failure is less likely.

I think part of our problem is that in software the manufacturing cost is
practically nothing (CD's or net distro are cheap.), so any more time spent
in design feels to management like a direct increase in cost, and therefore
a loss of profitability. Unless we can convince people that design pays by
reducing thrash I think we're going to continue getting squeezed for
shorter and shorter development cycles, with all that that implies. One
argument here is that a bad product does harm to a companies reputation,
and it is that reputation which is likely to sell the next version or the
next product.

There seems to be an acceptance by people that short time scales are
inevitable. I'd like to push back against that. To produce something really
good does take time and effort. If we accept ever shorter timescales then,
as a profession, we're selling out. One of the roles for a professional
group, in my opinion, is to advocate better design practice to the other
professions we interact with. But the point I'm really making is that, yes
we need to be flexible with process, but not with quality. With design of
physical objects there are clear quality constraints based on safety. In
software personal safety (as opposed to online security) isn't an issue
(excluding the effects of strobe lighting on epileptics), so there is no
immediately obvious minimum level of acceptable quality, which leaves us
with very little authority when the budgets come crashing in.

--Peter

At 16:09 27/10/2003, David Heller wrote:
>(just a simple reply, so that to continue the thread people can reply here.)
>
>Its funny that you think Visio is too high fidelity and my problem is that
>it is too low and that "sketches" that are on paper don't show behavior
>and isn't this what we are designing more than anything else?
>
>-- dave
>
>
>----------
>From: Joshua Seiden [mailto:joshseiden at yahoo.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:02 AM
>To: interactionarchitects at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: Prototypes, process, and ID (RE: [interactionarchitects] Re:
>process ... the next generation)
>
>Of course there is no single correct approach. As you
>and others note, we need to be able to pick our
>techniques according to context, and with some
>awareness of the strength and weakness of the approach.
>
>Some comments:
>
> > the car model: First off, earliest prototypes
> > are done in model format that obviously can't
> > be translated into final form factor, but there
> > is the "concept car" which is a full working
> > prototype, no?" And many other cars are done
> > in fully functional final renditions before
> > being given to the factory to build.
>
>Concept cars are often made of clay, fiberglass, etc.
>Even the full sized ones. Concept cars don't need to
>run, because manufacturers typically build on just a
>handful of platforms. They are used to elicit feedback
>at auto shows--all they have to do is look good with a
>supermodel draped over the hood. Platform development
>is another thing entirely, of course.
>
>Here's an interesting overview:
><http://www.cybersteering.com/cruise/feature/concept/con>http://www.cybersteering.com/cruise/feature/concept/con
>cept.html
>
> > I hate paper prototypes. I have to say that
> > they just don't work for me. I have been
> > working in visio for a decade now (so it feels)
> > and all these paper prototypes just NEVER get
> > the reaction that I require. It is almost
> > impossible to really understand reactions to
> > behavior but instead all I get is people
> > focussing on labels and coloring (yes, they
> > don't like that its black and white). People
> > don't get paper prototypes.
>
>Going back to Buxton's comments about sketches, there
>are two relevant points here:
>--sketches need to be just detailed enough for the
>problem at hand
>--sketches use specific language and vocabulary to
>indicate that they are sketches.
>
>I have never liked Visio, because the results are too
>detailed visually. I don't want to use a polished
>visual presentation in the early stages of my thinking,
>(ie, when I'm thinking about behavior) because that
>would indicate a level of finish that is inappropriate
>at that stage.
>
>It's important to note that "paper prototypes" can have
>a variety of fidelity levels. Paper prototypes can be
>low-fi, medium-fi, or even hi-fi. They can even have a
>combination of fidelity levels at the same time. (Low
>interaction fidelity, medium visual fidelity, for
>example.) Just because it's paper, doesn't mean that
>it's lo-fi.
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705007709:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&media=atkins>
>click here
>
>[]
>
>
>Web site: www.interactiondesigners.com
>
>Unsubscribe: interactionarchitects-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to unsubscribe: discuss-unsubscribe at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.interactiondesigners.com/pipermail/discuss-interactiondesigners.com/attachments/20031027/4d598d68/attachment.htm

Syndicate content Get the feed