> @ Phil: That is the first sort of real "case study" of sorts that I
> have read on an agile development case. I found it pretty
> informative. I didn't see on the site how long it took to develop
> though. Would you mind letting us know?
Well it's a piece of software, not a website. And the actual C# dev
time was around a year. Two developers plus someone doing the XAML
for the front end. The XAML took about 4-5 months, I think.
I've done several other agile+UCD projects and am still working on
some.
One was
emssixus.com (done using Trolltech Qt, rather than XAML).
That also took a year, but they had about 4 developers on that one.
Two of them were actually web-apps in silverlight. For heavily
interactive, complex software, agile is an absolute godsend. I don't
think it would really be possible to design good user experiences
without having working code to play with after a few sprints.
That said, sometimes, you do need to make mockups still, sometimes,
rather than doing everything in code. When exploring concepts for a
big new feature, it's much better to make protoypes in visio/
powerpoint/sketchflow/etc. Developers will often say "wait until we've
written the code, then test it with users" But for big concepts, you
might have to wait 8 sprints before the concept is in a fit state to
show to a user. And that's just too risky. (I consider the paper
prototypes to be "spikes". They are just design spikes, rather than
code spikes)
--phil--