I was reading that transcript that Gabriel pointed to earlier today: (link:
here is the last question's answer:
"Coop[er]: Bad idea. Prototypes are software. I believe that there's a role
for prototypes in interaction design, but I believe it's a very small and
limited role. It's primarily done as a narrative, not as software. The risk
of doing interaction design in a medium of code is much greater than the
benefits yield for you. We as competent craftspeople should be able to
communicate with great precision and clarity what we intend the software to
do without resorting to code.
Code is a sledgehammer here. Prototypes are code that has not achieved
released. Snippets of disposable code are great tools for design engineers,
but they don't play a large role for interaction designers."
Alan since I know you're here. ;) i wonder if you can expand on this a bit.
I trust you have good reasons and experience for this, but it goes counter
to my own both in IxD and in ID. Maybe I'm reading to much in certain spots.
But I'll posit that doing interaction design w/o creating interactions in
some form is akin to doing visual design w/o using color (but expecting
color in the final solution, saying that the printer will handle it). Now
that I put that out there, I'm curious.
What I'm not interested in, is the education component. I'm assuming that
tools are or will be easy enough and good at hiding real code that the
skills to acquire this craft is not an issue.