[IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd all create html clickable wireframes after the static ones have been don

[dave malouf]

Hi James, I find this interesting coming from you. Maybe, I'm just
stereotyping here, but since your background is so intermingled with
with Industrial Design I'm really surprised that you don't think
that an interactive prototype isn't necessary, I mean, not as a
communication tool, but as a design tool and a communication tool.

The question that sprung to mind in this thread for me, is that I
can't imagine any one of the IDs I would for NOT delivering an
appearance model WITH their 3D digital assets (which btw are done in
the same software that the mechanical engineers work in). So while it
is completely "specified", many stakeholders and just for the
purposes of design iteration need to see the appearance model.

For people less connected to the ID world. An appearance model is
practically indistinguishable from the final product when looking at
it and touching it. Even the buttons work as prescribed. It just
lacks electronics (even this is changing w/ the advent of cheap
technologies). My favorite aspect is that it is usually weighted
realistically as well.

I just can't see how we can do our jobs as effectively w/o having
these equivalent appearance models.

One of the issues I see facing the IxDer long term is that we have
taken the road of "director" instead of builder. Unlike most
designers we actually don't build anything. We don't show the
customer something that tells them, "Oh! so this is what I spent all
that money on." I believe this is a huge evangelism failing of ours
in our history and is something that we need to change in our "best
practices" moving forward. Interactive prototypes are a key to this.

-- dave


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted from the improved ixda.org
http://beta.ixda.org/discuss?post=19994