Both concepts described in the articles were interesting, and one key difference I noticed (besides the obvious difference in the prototypes) was how one type of prototypes could be tested more or less in the way it’s going to be used (as far as I could tell at least).
The three robotic prototypes described in ”Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses” were/are most likely going to be tested in similar conditions as when they are going to be used by consumers. In the case of the tactical information system, the main problem it was trying to solve was how to present information on the go without distracting the user from his/her surroundings (which is the case with visual information), which i interpret more or less as being able to take in information while doing something else. During the tests described in the article though, users were focusing at the information at hand.
I think this difference exemplifies the limitations of prototypes depending of the field of research and stage of development of a project as well as the type of role they may play. In fields where several well established technologies are combined in new ways, prototypes may show a clearer picture of the end-results. In less explored fields, prototypes may on the other hand simply point if the research is headed towards the right direction or not. If we take the soccer example: a prototype field-test with the same prototype may have given different results than the one described in the article, but it’s on the other hand quite understanding that recording the user experience in the field would’ve been rather complicated compared to controlled tests in a room/laboratory (or whatever facility one may choose). This is one example to why it could be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar