FW: [interactionarchitects] Re: process ... the next generation
29 Oct 2003 - 5:27am
The developers I encountered so far love to trow prototypes away but
refactoring is generally seen as a waste of time by the management - if it
seems sellable, it's good enough. Time constraints. 20-80 percent rule,
blahblah. In the company I work for now, we made the management sign an
agreement with the projectteam to allow us to trow away the entire pilot
version of the product we're working on.
In general, designers tend to see prototypes as exploratory - something
to be thrown away. Whereas, developers and engineers tend to see
prototypes, or use prototypes, as a path to the final product - which
is not their original intent. From the discussions I've had with
engineers over the years, it seems that some of the rationale behind
this is that they tend to have a hard time throwing away something
they've put so much time into. They seem to have a harder time throwing
away prototypes than designers do.
Cooper also hits on this in "The Inmates..."
On Oct 26, 2003, at 6:08 PM, John O'Donovan wrote:
> RUP (Rational Unified Process) organises prototypes like this: > > "You can view prototypes in two ways: what they explore; and how they > evolve > or what is their outcome. > > In the context of the first view - what they explore - there are two > main > kinds of prototypes: > > A behavioral prototype, which focuses on exploring specific behavior > of the > system. > A structural prototype, which explores some architectural or > technological > concerns. > > In the context of the second view - their outcome - there are also two > kinds > of prototypes: > > An exploratory prototype, which is thrown away when done, also called a > throw-away prototype. > An evolutionary prototype, which gradually evolves to become the real > system. " > >
Todd R. Warfel
User Experience Architect
MessageFirst | making products easier to use
voice: (607) 339-9640
email: twarfel at messagefirst.com
aim: twarfel at mac.com
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.