Reading Response: What do Prototypes Prototype? Houde, Stephanie and Charles Hill

"Everyone has a different expectation of what a prototype is. Industrial designers call a molded foam model a prototype. Interaction designers refer to a simulation of on-screen appearance and behavior as a prototype. Programmers call a test program a prototype. A user studies expert may call a storyboard, which shows a scenario of something being used, a prototype."

This is a very accurate statement, and is even relevant to this class. I came in under a preconceived notion that the type of interactive prototyping I would be designing would be just like that of previous "interactive prototyping" courses I had taken. I was creating simulations of web pages and mobile apps prior, and each of those courses had different levels of prototypes within them. Some were paper, others were "low-fidelity," while others were basically unpublished working products. Now I am on the cusp of creating a protytype that exists off a page or screen.

The term "prototype" has been thrown around so much it requires context to understand the content. Using Hollywood as an example, Tony Stark of Marvel's Iron Man movies meets with his military colleague James Rhodes to show him a "prototype" of his latest exosuit, but he flies in with it, fully functional and ready to equip with the latest military-grade installations. The authors of the book define prototype as "any representation of a design idea, regardless the medium." So the pressing question for the exosuit (which would become the War Machine) is "what then, is this prototyping, if it is not the finished suit?" My guess is: it was the paint job.

"Storyboards ... are considered to be effective design tools by many designers because they help focus design discussion on the role of an artifact very early on. However, giving them status as prototypes is not common because the medium is paper and thus seems very far from the medium of an interactive computer system. We consider this storyboard to be a prototype because it makes a concrete representation of a design idea and serves the purpose of asking and answering design questions."

I am definitely on board with this line of thinking. While it is true that paper leaves far more to the imagination for the user test participants, it is also the most maleable form of prototyping with the least amount of commitment. Even simple digital wireframes take more effort than pen and paper. On paper it is easy to cross things out, take notes right on the prototype and at the worst, crumple it up and start over. No harm done.I would even go as far as to suggest that participants in users tests may even be more open to adverse opinion as they are not plagued with the concerns of "hurting someone's feelings" with regard to their design. I have experienced great successes with paper prototyping and will continue to do it in future design.

"High quality appearance models are costly to build. There are two common reasons for investing in one: to get a visceral response by making the design seem “real” to any audience (design team, organization, and potential users); and to verify the intended look and feel of the artifact before committing to production tooling. "

I find myself on the fence regarding the idea of these types of models, and I would definitely err on the side of caution when considering this implementation. I'm certain that these are only created after other extensive prototyping sessions have been exhausted, reaching this state. However, in my experience, I have seen many a prototype come to this level prematurely only to be completley picked apart and inevitably discarded. I would suggest that this is very true for the automotive industry. Year after year, concept cars are rolled out on display at Geneva, Detroit, and other major auto shows, only to be set aside and forgotten. Many of these are painstakingly build to production level, some even equipped with a fully functional drivetrain.