Talk:Design prototyping

Comments peer review from course

Peer review 1

The article is very well done. gives a comperhensive view about protoyping. I'd suggest that adding a section related to discplinary usages of prototypes and how protoypes are percived by different design arenas.

The last section in the characteristics of prototyping with the title "prototype" maybe this section can have more details on what could be defined as a prototype to what level of detail and how it does look like? this can also include different formats in an eplicit way.

Maybe aslo adding a title about obstacles or criticsm or defeciences of different prorotype technique(s) might be good add. (e.g. financial aspects)

Thanks for the article, a big add.

--Criticaldesigner (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Dear Criticaldesigner thanks for reading! I didn't go in deep into the concept of "prototype" as there is another article about it (I linked it). However, it is not very complete. I was thinking of updating it but I didn't have enough time before the course deadline. It would certainly be a good addition to talk about the challenges of prototyping. Not many authors talk about them.

Peer review 2

Very interesting and well done article. I would add some link to co-design and participatory prototyping Participatory design --Marcovedoa (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Dear Marcovedoa, thanks! I put a link for the wikipedia "participatory design" in the text but as you suggest a link to another reference could also sum.

updates to the text

June

Dear Marcovedoa, I observed carefully the change you propose by adding "action research" (AR) in the definition of prototyping but I don't see the direct relation or the fit of a research methodology from social sciences to define design prototyping. 1) while experimentation is referenced in design literature within the design process (e.g., Experimentation in the Design of New Products-Thomke 1998), I am not aware AR is. 2) As far as I understand AR doesn't use prototypes or models for the research. Thus, I removed it. However, if you like we could discuss it before thinking about adding it again or not, please write back here. Could you please give a reference from the design literature that could evidence these points? Also would you be able to give a short explanation on how it is a cycle of making and testing a prototype? --Luthienrecanto (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Tecnology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2021.

The article deals with an interesting and very topical issue.

The approach to the theme and, in particular, the bibliographic and iconographic research appear to be outdated and can be improved.

Ettmajor (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expert attention needed

The article is a good start to introducing the topic, and gives some feeling for the relevant history. However, I feel it could improve significantly with attention from several experts in distinct fields, including design theory itself and various applications, e.g. to sociological and linguistic fieldwork, and also to (IT or Operations research a.k.a. methods) systems development. yoyo (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Research Through Design (RTD)

The lead para introduces the term "Research Through Design (RTD)", but the body of the article doesn't add to our knowledge of this approach. Yet a quick search on the Internet reveals "about 8,860,000 results". Also, I've seen it being used recently in linguistic fieldwork. Perhaps it needs its own article Research Through Design? yoyo (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Model Engineering

It is doing a disservice to the topic to not mention the predecessor to Design Prototyping: Model engineering. Prototyping was not invented in 1968; it was just a terminology change. This article reads like it was written by a very inexperienced person. 98.102.216.90 (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]