Open derekeder opened 11 years ago
Yes! This is a great idea pattern, because the the app can be more focused on building a "scaffold for conversation/criticism" than in trying to capture a perfect outcome in the design.
I think one challenge in this is managing expectations, and admitting that the app is just an early stage of an iterative process rather than the outcome. It can be tough to admit "I built this because I don't know." Also, it requires some humaneness (and thick skin) to separate the people who are only critical from those who are constructive.
Thanks for the contribution!
I believe the best defense against criticism in the prototype is to be as transparent as possible in your process, with special care taken to point out the holes in the data. We spend a lot of effort documenting things in our about pages for this reason.
http://www.chicagolobbyists.org/about http://cpstiers.opencityapps.org/about.html
One side-benefit that I have found in making civic apps is that building an early prototype that demonstrates what is possible with a certain kind of data can lead to an introduction/conversation with someone who is an expert in that domain.
Often times, developers and designers looking from the outside don't have a good handle on the story or true meaning behind the data and have to spend a lot of time guessing. However, once something is out there, you have something to start a conversation around, and most likely people who are passionate or interested in the topic come out of the woodwork.
You can then take this relationship to iterate on your prototype or take it in a new direction entirely based on new information.
Examples of this include:
You could call this 'build it and they will come' + 'minimum viable product' = 'build it and the right person will come'