I’ve always been wondering what type of methods traditional architects rely on for achieving forms that fit more appropriately to their surrounding contexts of use. Although I’ve been mostly working with visual interfaces, it always seemed like the field of architecture lagged behind in the methods and tools which are available to other design fields. In interaction design we’ve seen the user-centered philosophy permeate the field and give rise to such powerful techniques as user testing and ethnography. Do architects have similar tools at their disposal? Last week, it came as a surprise as one of my all time favourite social scientists, anthropologists and deep design research thinkers, Elizabeth Sanders, reappeared in a talk at TU Delft about her recent work in the field of architecture. Elizabeth presents her struggles in figuring out how to make traditional architecture a more friendly place with the help of participatory design techniques. Two thumbs up.

>> See video. (requires Silverlight but is worth it)

As the end cut tagline says: “killing good ideas can harm your future”. Would focus groups be a thing of the past? According to what we have been exposed to at TU Delft, healthier research approaches are composed not only of what people say, but rather a combination of what people say, do and make.

This technique of demonstrating an interface using video comes up more and more often these days. It’s basically a combination between paper prototyping, video recording and then eventual sharing of it using online video web sites. Perhaps seeing the interface change with the help of real people and voice overs feels a lot more engaging then just looking at a wireframe document stack alone.

In The future of wireframes, Isaac Pinnock writes about where the wireframe is heading. Some of the possible directions include:

• Shortening of the lifespan of a wireframe
• Widening of the audience being able to contribute to wireframing
• Object-orientation and component approach, making adjustments easier to manage
• More visual than functional
• More exploratory
• Widening of the possible spectrum of wireframing tools (supporting wider ranges of fidelity)

I think I agree with most points. What I am trying to do with fluidIA is to tackle the problem of the shortening wireframe lifespan by means of making changes a great deal more easy to accomplish (through object orientation).