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

[James Leftwich, IDSA]

My responses to these posts below...


> From: dave malouf <dave at ixda.org>
> Date: October 1, 2007 2:38:52 AM PDT
> To: discuss at ixda.org
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd  
> all create html clickable wireframes after the static ones have  
> been don
>
>
> 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

I think prototyping is very useful, and I've prototyped extensively  
in product design. Back in the 1980s, it started with raw sheets of  
plex and lexan and all-nighters on the milling machine and mixing up  
hot bondo and painting, etc..  Nowadays we just sent files and get  
back SLAs in a couple of days.  I also still love to work with foam  
models, studying the ergonomics of devices and finger and control  
placement.

And as I said, I and my teammembers do have certain aspects of our  
software and interface work prototyped, but our designs are simply  
too large (an entire phone OS, with numerous applications, for  
instance, and about five months to get it the design and spec in  
place and underway).  We're working closely with engineers most  
times, and so we can actually begin to see the actual applications  
taking shape.

Other times, it's simply from extremely short development timeframes  
with systems and software that are very complex and detailed.  Since  
we're often developing and iteratively refinining the design and spec  
on a very rushed scale, I can often talk to a flow and screenshots  
and discuss the twelve ways we could do something, directly with the  
engineer, with us both taking notes, and then determine which  
alternative we like best (and fits) and go ahead and spec that out.

As for selling the design to the organizations, I've been in this for  
a long time.  Since the early 90s I've been working mostly with  
Directors, VPs, and up, so they already know the background and track  
record and level of results they can expect.  I think designers  
working down in the lower levels of organizations (and I see a lot of  
disgruntled and frustrated designers in my client corporations), are  
often thwarted in their efforts to innovate, and spend way too much  
of their time trying to justify their designs.

It really is better nearer to the top.  The truth is, and let's be  
honest here, many, many organizations have layers of MarCom,  
Usability, Designers, etc., and much of their efforts are spent  
working on processes and critiquing and checking each others  
efforts.  Often this eats up months and months of time, and then lots  
of times these products come out looking bolted together and  
inconsistent, since they weren't guided by a single directing vision.



> From: dave malouf <dave at ixda.org>
> Date: October 1, 2007 3:17:38 AM PDT
> To: discuss at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd  
> all create html clickable wireframes after the static ones have  
> been don
>
>
> I see in Jim's email the piece about the level of detail in his
> specifications. Detail is important indeed.
>
> But I wonder if we had tools that were good enough so that the time
> and energy it took to do that level of specification is the same
> amount of time it would take to just build it, then we wouldn't need
> to specify it?
>
> Like the other David, I'm doing a project in Blend right now and our
> goal is to really concentrate more energy on building usable code than
> for creating documentation. Now since this is a 1.0 product, we'll
> see how it all pans out, but we already know that a standard designer
> with even basic Flash level programming skills isn't enough to get
> the level of code we need to truly do this hand-off the way we want
> (& now) need to.
>
> The tools themselves REALLY aren't good enough. Better visual or
> human language programming tools are really needed here.
>
> I should be able to create a state transition on click on a specific
> hot spot as easily in Flash or Blend as I could in powerpoint.
> Anything short of that and IMHO the tools fail.
>
> -- dave

This might be true.  I just know that I wouldn't wait around until  
the perfect toolset comes along.  And so many of the projects I work  
on are on all manners of platforms and operating systems (and  
sometimes no operating systems at all - where we implement an  
interface directly onto a chip).


> From: "Wilson, Russell" <Russell.Wilson at netqos.com>
> Date: October 1, 2007 8:50:00 AM PDT
> To: Andrei Herasimchuk <andrei at involutionstudios.com>, IxDA List  
> <discuss at ixda.org>
> Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] True or False: In a perfect world we'd  
> allcreate html clickable wireframes after the static ones havebeen  
> done
>
>
> If one lacks the skills to do so, either get back to school and learn
> them, grab some books and dive in on, or get a bigger budget to hire
> people who can help them build prototypes. Whichever path one takes,
> I don't think one can ever underestimate the value and importance of
> building functioning prototypes. Ever.
>
> -----------
>
> I think we are slowly transforming the way software is created.  I  
> would
> guess that roughly 99% of software today is still created by taking  
> some
> requirements, throwing them at a dev team, iterate some builds and  
> change
> a few things, and then release.  No design team.  This is changing  
> as users
> expectations are increased by software products that raise the bar  
> through
> appropriate design processes.  But at the moment, it is still very  
> difficult
> to insert a design phase that includes the development of  
> interactive prototypes
> and testing of those prototypes, as well as the resources to  
> accomplish that.
>
> (Much easier for consultants and agencies who are contracted to  
> create something
> and can follow whatever process they desire)


There are lots of good prototypers around these days, so it's gotten  
a lot easier to bring someone onto a project to do interactive  
prototyping.

But in our projects, it's really the larger issues such as the  
business and organizational ramifications of major redesigns and  
establishing the guidelines for future buildout where our greatest  
efforts go.

And lastly, a great deal of our "design" work these days involves  
looking for ways to incorporate technologies that do away with  
interfaces altogether.  The best interface is no interface  
necessary.  So any opportunities to build smarts and efficiency into  
a device or system that cuts down on the need for user mediation is  
always welcome.

I love prototypes, but I love getting the real product to be exactly  
like it's been designed even more and our methods have served us well  
in the conditions in which we've worked.  I think that every designer  
and design team must find the tools and processes that suit them best.

All building architects make models. But the model is not what is  
down at the worksite.  The architects, working with structural  
engineers also create extensive blueprints, and then work with these  
onsite with the construction crews until the building is finished.  
This, more than any other analogy, matches my own experiences in the  
product and software world.  My work is almost entirely centered  
around the extensively detailed blueprints.  These aren't merely  
lists, but are detailed screens, control layouts, and extensive flows.

But I'll underscore again the importance of finding ways to work with  
or consult to the upper levels of companies.  You'll find that you  
can get much more done, and with less second-guessing by others.  And  
in our experience, you can achieve a much greater coherency of vision  
and fidelity to your design in its real implementation.  Whatever  
methods you like to use to design and develop, you'll find it easier  
if you're working at or coordinating with the executive level of  
corporations.

Jim

-------------------------------
James Leftwich, IDSA
Orbit Interaction
Palo Alto, CA
jleft at orbitnet.com
http://www.orbitnet.com