Look beyond paper; the idea of a structural dependence on printed tourist guides for destination choice is a fleeting notion that will not last a decade. The arc of technological progress is leading us toward ubiquitous information and personalized AI assistants, making static works obsolete for decision-making. In twenty years, every corner of the world will be covered by networks, and your travel companion will be an algorithm generating dynamic itineraries in real time based on your preferences. Paper guides will become vintage collectibles, consulted for pleasure or aesthetics, not practicality. For example, relying on a 2024 guide for a trip in 2044 will be as outdated as using a paper road map to navigate a city today.

One sentence: the research on destination criteria did not "make user testing possible" for TravelFlix; it's more conditional.
The parsimony tells us that a clear prototype is needed to test ergonomics, not just a list of user desires.
Without a concrete product to evaluate, tests are aimless, like brewing beer without a defined recipe.
In Belgium, we don't test features in the air, but a specific implementation.

Who pays the price when we rely solely on age segmentation to design a prototype like TravelFlix? It's an excessive simplification that risks excluding many people, especially small players who don't fit into boxes. The practical side of all this is that age doesn't tell the whole story; an elderly person can be a great adventurer just as a young person might prefer tranquility, which directly influences their search criteria. For example, an Italian retiree passionate about hiking won't find recommendations if the system assumes they want thalassotherapy stays because of their age. Limiting design to a single variable is missing the opportunity to truly help everyone.