I don't think I'm the right person to answer your question but I think
my experience is somehow related to the problem you are mentioning.
HTML and CSS is good for middle-fidelity prototypes, for my case. When
some mock dynamic behaviours. The turn-around time is quite short.
I also tried XUL. It was about two years ago. There was a high cost in
climbing up the learning curve, particularly due to the lack of
experience and proper documentation. In addition to that, there were
hidden pitfalls, like undiscovered bugs and etc. We used to google all
day long to solve problems.
Recently I used Python and wxWindows (wxPython) for rapid
high-fidelity prototyping tool. That was very pleasing. What could've
taken a week for us to do in other options could be done in ten
After learning many lessons from all those experiences and quest for
the-right-prototyping-tool, I keep in mind the danger in chasing
high-fidelity prototypes and value lo-fi protos even higher than
before. After all, all protos are wastes(in the sense of Lean), aren't
Watching Robert Rodriguez' DVDs helped me challenging my old beliefs.
2006/12/8, Theo Mandel, Ph.D. <theo@...
> I've been creating high-fidelity prototypes using HTML and CSS for a client PC application. The system architect says they are moving toward using Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) and XAML (Extensible Application Markup Language). We are discussing how this will affect how we prototype and build the application in the future.
> Prototyping with HTML has been quick and easy for turnaround time and for remotely reviewing with user groups. I'm concerned about the learning curve and programing aspects of prototyping using WPF and XAML. I'd like to hear from other UI and interaction designers about their experiences with low- and high-fidelity prototyping in HTML vs. WPF and XAML.
> Please respond to the list or to me directly.
> Theo Mandel, Ph.D.