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

[Elizabeth Bacon]

> Prototyping for thick clients as opposed to wireframing in html are
> two very different beasts - timewise, cost wise and resource-wise - a
> college intern with most of their frontal cortex intact could
> prototype an html interactive prototype from paper wireframes in
> little time at little cost. In the real world - that is the world with
> limited budgets, limited time, and limited resources where most of us
> are just happy they have actually budgeted for IAs and IxDs to begin
> with - prototyping a thick client application is very difficult to
> justify. In my company we could - could - and maybe even will -
> prototype in WPF for .Net3. And if we do this - the real world will
> slip back in and that prototype will get tweaked and shipped as a
> beta. Thats just the way it is. Product managers have deadlines to
> meet - development managers will be loath to give up some developers
> to work on prototypes that are throw-away, even though that is what
> prototypes should be - and no one will give IxDs the 3-6 months to
> learn xaml/wpf + c# necessary to do the prototypes themself.


Thanks for bringing this up! I was going to ask, do people here find  
it hard to convince development to keep the prototype a prototype  
when you're starting to use code that's theoretically shippable? I  
mean, using a prototype language that's identical to the shipping  
language. (But I didn't want my first email to dive into negatives.)  
I think that there's a chicken-and-egg issue for product management  
in that case, definitely...they feel that you have to refine the real  
software instead of a prototype to justify the expense. And yet it  
could be the prototyping process that really lets IxD get ahead and  
support each iteration.

I've actually found that low-res prototypes are easier to justify in  
very thick client situations. If the code is esoteric or dangerous,  
then you have to step outside the build process to test it  
conceptually. But that's my medical device experience talking!


> Sorry to
> rain on the parade of theoreticians and consultants that like to posit
> platonic ideas about how we should design and develop software on Mt
> Olympus. Some of us have to design, build and test in the real world
> limited by money, time and resources.


Design is design because it exists in the real world. I'm not on Mt  
Olympus, though maybe I'm a tad jealous of those who reside there....

Cheers,
Liz


On Aug 31, 2007, at 7:24 PM, W Evans wrote:

>
>
>