When it comes down to prototyping (or any other desing artifacts) people are often accustomed to taking a stand on fidelity as an absolute that applies to the whole prototype or document. On the two extreme opposites it’s either a very rough prototype (such as a paper model or sketch) or on the other end it’s a highly functional and detailed prototype (such as working code with proper visual styling and relationships). However, to think of fidelity in a more granular fashion opens up some doors.  Say on the same interface representation or prototype, some areas can be left less defined and some become more detailed. This gives the designer more flexibility to choose where to spend his design attention on. No longer is the designer forced to detail out a particular area to the fidelity which the document or prototype proposes. Instead, some areas are detailed and some less. Just thinking that our design documents and prototyping tools could support this granular level of fidelity a bit better, as opposed to dictating it to us.

Just carried over a discussion onto the IXDA forums around the adequate number of alternative sketches from where it picked up, only for it to come back where it originially came from. Still continuing to ponder how to chart out, visualize or measure a design space over time.

Just did a quick user test for a project here at TU Delft. One thing which I did different than usual was the placement of some transparent paper over the interface print outs. This helped to keep the interface more stable as people interacted with the model.