Hey folks,
So we realize from the comments on last week’s Cloak prototyping video blog post that there may be a little bit of confusion about what a prototype IS, exactly. Now we know that some of our community members are fluent in the language of product development, but we also know that there are countless more who aren’t. We’re happy to educate, with help from the fine folks at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype
Basic prototype categories
Proof-of-Principle Prototype (Model) (also called a breadboard). This type of prototype is used to test some aspect of the intended design without attempting to exactly simulate the visual appearance, choice of materials or intended manufacturing process. Such prototypes can be used to “prove” out a potential design approach such as range of motion, mechanics, sensors, architecture, etc. …
Form Study Prototype (Model). This type of prototype will allow designers to explore the basic size, look and feel of a product without simulating the actual function or exact visual appearance of the product. They can help assess ergonomic factors and provide insight into visual aspects of the product’s final form. Form Study Prototypes are often hand-carved or machined models from easily sculpted, inexpensive materials (e.g., urethane foam), without representing the intended color, finish, or texture …
Visual Prototype (Model) will capture the intended design aesthetic and simulate the appearance, color and surface textures of the intended product but will not actually embody the function(s) of the final product. These models will be suitable for use in market research, executive reviews and approval, packaging mock-ups, and photo shoots for sales literature.
Functional Prototype (Model) (also called a working prototype) will, to the greatest extent practical, attempt to simulate the final design, aesthetics, materials and functionality of the intended design. The functional prototype may be reduced in size (scaled down) in order to reduce costs. The construction of a fully working full-scale prototype and the ultimate test of concept, is the engineers’ final check for design flaws and allows last-minute improvements to be made before larger production runs are ordered.
Differences between a prototype and a production design
In general, prototypes will differ from the final production variant in three fundamental ways:
Materials. Production materials may require manufacturing processes involving higher capital costs than what is practical for prototyping. Instead, engineers or prototyping specialists will attempt to substitute materials with properties that simulate the intended final material.
Processes. Often expensive and time consuming unique tooling is required to fabricate a custom design. Prototypes will often compromise by using more flexible processes.
Lower fidelity. Final production designs often require extensive effort to capture high volume manufacturing detail. Such detail is generally unwarranted for prototypes as some refinement to the design is to be expected. Often prototypes are built using very limited engineering detail as compared to final production intent.
The Cloak prototype Ben tooled around with in the video is a Functional Prototype, which is our “final check” on the product’s workability. To be clear: it’s not the final product! Just wanted to clear that up. =)
10 Comments
Stalias | 04/26/2010 2:06 PM
V. helpful.
Majortcs | 04/26/2010 6:01 PM
We all would like explanations not a rehash of Wikipedia!
John Gonzalez | 04/27/2010 1:51 PM
I don’t think this will be received as a complete response to the community’s generally negative response to the Cloak prototype video. It may help a bit to let folks know that the prototype was a functional prototype, but without specific information on how the final product is expected to differ from the prototype, what’s that really mean? Perhaps this could be addressed in the next prototype video.
jess | 04/27/2010 1:54 PM
Not trying to pass this off as an explanation, just trying to educate!
DanRanda | 05/07/2010 9:09 PM
Thank you for educating us Jess. (i do mean that. I am one of those people who are less familiar with the design and production timeline of things). I believe John Gonzalez’s comment above speaks to the communities larger concern(s), the main concern being that the mechanics of it, specifically the hinge mechanism seen in the prototype video was nothing close to what the product description and mock up images led the community to believe.
I committed to this product and then later I saw the video and I immediately grew concerned about the hinge. I understand that prototypes (regardless of what phase of a prototype) are not the exact final product, but as John stated, it left the community wondering exactly what direction the product is headed in because we weren’t certain what parts of the prototype were considered “final” and which parts needed retooling from your perspective.
Then, what I believe stoked the flames of the community even more so was that you defined the prototype according to wikipedia’s entry of it being a “Functional Prototype”. Since I have no ability to bold my font here I will put [brackets] around the parts of the definition that concern us:
Functional Prototype (Model) (also called a working prototype) will, to the greatest extent practical, attempt to simulate the [FINAL DESIGN], aesthetics, materials and [FUNCTIONALITY OF THE INTENDED DESIGN]. The functional prototype may be reduced in size (scaled down) in order to reduce costs. The construction of a fully working full-scale prototype and the ultimate test of concept, is the engineers’ [FINAL CHECK FOR DESIGN FLAWS] and allows [LAST MINUTE] improvements to be made before larger production runs are ordered.
Parts of that definition indicate that this should be the last iteration of the prototype phase.. meaning we assume you’ve gotten the hinge designed and you’ve assembled it with the desired materials at this point but are checking that the FUNCTIONALITY OF THE INTENDED DESIGN are being met. I believe that the community is overwhelmingly concerned that the hinge design we saw in the prototype video is what quirky considers to be the FUNCTIONALITY OF THE INTENDED DESIGN. And since the hinge seems to be the most crucial aspect of the unique design of the cloak, we are left wondering how you could at all be testing the FUNCTIONALITY OF THE INTENDED DESIGN or attempting to simulate the FINAL DESIGN without it included this vital piece.
So now that I’ve taken my time to kindly and logically show you what we are concerned about and why we are concerned about it I will ask you as plainly as I can… Will the Cloak utilize what appears to be an internal hinge (the mock ups show that the entire spine area of the hinge are encased within the rubbery exterior material) which click-locks (ratchet style) into place and does not require that goofy, plastic, squared-off ring that the prototype video showed in order to hold itself together?
nycjdf | 05/14/2010 6:44 PM
why does nothing get answered? it seems like questions about the final cloak product and the prototype issues are being ignored.. i’ve bought one as well and i’m concerned.
jess | 05/14/2010 7:03 PM
Sorry if there’s the impression that nothing is getting answered! As you may have noticed, there are many channels of communication here at Quirky. Oftentimes, answers are posted in one place (like the forum or on the product page) and not in others. We’re still figuring out the BEST way to communicate messages about our products/site/process/etc. — please bear with us!
Here’s what’s final about Cloak, as reflected in the new product copy on the website:
—
Cloak can be positioned to sit on a flat surface in portrait, landscape, and typing stand positions.
Portrait: fold the Cloak’s front cover behind your iPad and use the larger plastic support brace located on the product’s inside cover to prop up the screen vertically.
Landscape: open Cloak’s front cover and use it to prop up your iPad screen from behind. The screen can be positioned in different angles using a friction-fit folding mechanism.
Typing stand: flip out the smaller plastic support brace on Cloak’s inside cover to prop up your iPad screen at a low landscape angle, ideal for typing.
The Cloak is constructed from non-slip rubber, with durable plastic on the hinge mechanisms. To insert your iPad, just pop it into the front of the case.
—
You’ll notice that there is not a ratchet-style “clicking” hinge in the final product, but rather a flip-style landscape hinge and an added “typing stand”.
I have to say (not that I’m biased or anything, hehe) that what I’ve seen of the product is pretty amazingly designed and engineered to provide for multiple stand options, while maintaining that slim, sleek, lightweight design everyone fell for.
Hope that clears up some of the questions!
mona | 05/21/2010 12:29 PM
Hi Jess
at what point are you?
I know, you tried to make the iPad Cloak as thin as possible. But how “thin” is it? I guess it became quite double as the nude iPad – so that’s about 2 cm?
Thanks
Monika
jess | 05/24/2010 7:26 PM
We’re in final production on Cloak, and we hope to have it out in the next week or two.
Current estimated thickness is about 0.77 inches.
mona | 05/25/2010 5:38 PM
Hi Jess
Final production sounds very fine. The iPads for Europe ordered May 9th left Shezhen May 23th and already passed Hong Kong. So, they will arrive this week.
0.77 inches are 1.96 cm, that means very close to 2.00 cm – that’s what I thought. A good Protection and functionallity needs a certain space – that’s clear.
Thanks Jess – I wished you could do faster but I know, you and your team do your very best.
Monika