The Art of Prototyping

This is a review of several texts as published by Interactions, the bimonthly publication of ACM in the January-February edition 2006 (Volume XIII.1). This issue included a whole section dedicated to prototyping according to different authors, researchers and practitioners.

The main idea I have got out of reading it is that people don't won't agree in a generic idea on what means to prototype. It is clear to me that paper prototypes, low-fi 3D prototypes, semi functional prototypes, and pre-production fully exhibitable prototypes can and have to co-exist in a creative environment.

Two of the authors, who happen to be siblings, are focused in the idea of presumptive design. To me it sounds like the excuse of those that defended the "fly on the wall strategy" for ages and that, after collecting many experiences consider themselves wise enough for sometimes prejudging the situation.

I think there is not a big difference between that and accepting the traditional method that designers have always used: do something thinking about your own needs, push it out, and if it doesn't work ask people how they would like it.

This approach is at least letting the designer be honest to himself and avoids the systematic growth of white hair because of having to give too much to the user-centered process (which in my opinion makes the designer become a slave when followed with marxistic attitude).

There is a good brute-force prototype made by Gaver et al. that can be located at the other side of the scale to paper prototypes. In this case they push a whole computer inside a table just to control an LCD screen showing different maps. The table will become a way to browse through and interact with maps. The only difference between this interactive piece of furniture and some others made in a similar fashion is that it is the father of cultural probes behind it.

Personally I think it is almost cute to claim that there is a lot of ethnographic work behind this piece. It looks to me like the presumptive design piece that every postmodern design professor would like to produce and that finally someone made.

A final word for prototypes: they are tools for discussion, not only with the users, but also from a critical design perspective. They help designers to communicate ideas, illustrate concepts and evoke situations. When properly staged will allow users to suspend disbelief and, if fully functional, they will do it over long-term periods.

As Leo Fishberg mentions in his article, if prototypes are not having the right level of quality, the users will concentrate more in the lack of fidelity of the tool than in the actual situation and their feedback will become harder to read, their critique will probably fail to be constructive.

References
Follow some notes from the articles by each one of the authors.

Nevin Berger:

- uses Excel to prototype websites, has created a template that contains buttons, text fields, etc
- compares the use of this tool to the use of dreamweaver or plain HTML and images produced by the use of MS Paint

Conclusion: Prototyping is still about mastering a tool, doesn't matter if it is a software or a hardware prototype, the only crucial thing is to minimize the time to reach the user

Leo Fishberg:

- "Low-resolution prototypes challenged teams to elicit constructive user feedback; real products were much easier for users to discuss positively" (elicit = obtener)
- "Presumptive design [...] is a fast way to find out how wrong you are and what users really want".

Conclusion: Presumptive design throws away the "fly on the wall metaphor" since it assumes the designer has a previous knowledge on cases based in his personal experience. The higher the level of the prototype the easier it becomes to get constructive feedback from the users

Nancy Fishberg:

- use of junk for prototyping
- challenge --> how much structure to give in the design problem?
- abstraction: the distinction between product, service delivery, or workflow
- participants in creative processes appreciate the chance to use presumptive design

Conclusion: designers like to get a chance to have an opinion in the design process, therefore they prefer presumptive design. however it feels like only those with experience may have the chance to prejudge and create an opinion, a dreamed prototype to show to the users as an appetizer

Andrew Boucher and William Gaver:

- "Potential aesthetic choices are constrained by technical feasibility, while engineering solutions are constrained by the need to achieve a desirable aesthetics".
- "[...] prototype robust, reliable, and safe. capable of continuous runtime without failure ..."
- "value of creating a highly finished robust prototype is [...] allowing users to suspend disbelief and engage with the device over long term trials".

Conclusion: paper prototypes are good to a certain extent, later a new layer of complexity is needed: the fully functional, semi-finished prototype