I used to run 24 hour challenges where the idea was to fail. To set a task to build something that could not be done, or at least not well. It was about trying new roles in a team, stretching and learning to be okay with failure. We learned so much when we allowed ourselves to not succeed, to the point that every one of them was a success.

@Gavin: Agreed. I’d only add that it likely depends on the stage of the idea. If it’s early, it might work better if the prototype is a bit malleable (changeable)…

@Eli: Great point on SketchUp! The way it can stylize anything you build to look like an artists rendering is really quite amazing.

Free to download; there’s also a pro version that lets you output to a pile of additional data formats. Check out the case studies.

http://sketchup.google.com/

I think Alan (hmmm don’t I know you from somewhere) has a good point — to go in front of clients, prototypes need to be close approximations. Otherwise you leave yourself open to setting false expectations.

I agree that clients only pretend to understand wireframes. Or even flats.

There’s always that “oh this is what you meant” moment.

What’s funny is that traditional “above the line” agencies use many of these techniques to sell TV spots: storyboards, rough animatics (crude animation with non-professional VO) and “filmatics” (similar, but with stock footage.)

What’s great about using them in this space is that they really do offer explanation of what the “thing” is– in TV, they’re poor imitations of a TV spot that is more easily imagined. Here, it’s bringing something to life.

Have you ever checked out CommonCraft? I fell in love with them when I watched their explanation of Twitter: http://www.commoncraft.com/Twitter which is so nicely done. I bet they’d be great at prototypes.

PS: I think you and I may be the only two people who ever use ComicLife (I use it to make comics with my kids – it’s a great program.)