Assignment+5

Often times, designs are not suddenly turned into inventions after one prototype. Many inventions require several design iterations that result in a well formed prototype. In order to begin our overall prototype which took into consideration each members view of the application, we had to first consider which types of interfaces would be best suited to help users understand the product, interaction types that would complement their activities and other alternative insights and opinions. We first started off by evaluating each member prototypes and made a list of what we should keep in the overall prototype and what we should not. Essentially, we were aiming to focus on the ease of use which often coincides with functional aspects of the design. The following shows a list that we collectively made to begin designing our overall prototype:
 * Prototype**
 * **MEMBER** || **KEEP** || **NOT KEEP** ||
 * //Hinal// || * iPhone wireframe
 * || Named parking lots ||
 * //Angelo// ||  ||   ||
 * //Andrew// ||  ||   ||
 * //Jimi// ||  ||   ||

From Hinal’s prototype, we first decided to keep her iPhone wireframe. It was a great idea which can often help a user actually visualize how the application will look on his/her phone. Also, the iPhone screen being bigger than most of the smartphone’s screens also provides a better visual display of the application design. We decided not to keep how she displayed the parking lots by the buildings name. UTM has their parking lots numbered and thus we decided to stay consistent and aim to keep our users the least confused. In regards to requirements, our overall prototype was built **around usability, functional etc. requirements.**
 * TALK ABOUT WHY WHAT WAS TAKEN IN/OUT*