Summary:
The reading explains paper prototyping in great detail including what it is, how to do it, and why it's useful. It begins by outlining the materials needed to create a prototype and then explains why you might choose to include a background (e.g., poster board) and how to do it. The majority of the reading discussed three closely related topics: representing interface widgets, representing user's choices, and simulating interactions.
Near the end, the reading moves away from software prototyping and provides recommendations for hardware prototyping.
Critique:
In a way, this reading complemented the week 4 reading by Frick and Boling. Whereas that reading focused more on the prototyping testing process as a whole, this reading concentrated on the paper-based prototype itself. While I found some of the tips/techniques interesting, the Frick and Boling reading was more helpful. My biggest problem with the reading is that the prototype they created sounded very confusing, complicated, and cumbersome to me. It's a process I would have to observe in order to understand. I found myself thinking wouldn't it be easier to create a low-fidelity computer mock-up at this point, rather than keeping track of all these note cards, transparencies, and invisible tape?
For a simple example of how to adapt the process to your particular needs, see the YouTube video that Kristen found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq1rkVTZLtU&playnext=1&list=PLA6E69867C5F51D0F
ReplyDeleteSnyder's suggestions are extremely detailed but as designers, we adapt whatever we decide to adopt. (Not original, I got that from Patti Shenk.) Snyder's approach has plenty of good ideas to pick from no matter what the complexity of the prototype.
You're absolutely right that low-fidelity is the key word. I like "quick and dirty" too. Just enough fidelity for the sample learner to "get it" and show or tell you how it hits them.
Nicole, you feel exactly the same way I do about paper prototypes. While the articles did seem to complement each other, there is still something missing for me--a reason to do a paper prototype instead of just going straight to my computer.
ReplyDeleteMediaSage - I like the video you posted. It certainly simplified the process that Snyder described for me. Still, I'm not completely convinced. The video presents a paper-based prototype for a very simple mobile interface. I think a paper-based prototype will become very complicated very quickly for an instructional course. Nevertheless, I look forward to proving myself wrong when I develop my own paper prototype for this course.
ReplyDeleteKristen - Agreed. But maybe we'll find that reason when we develop our own paper prototypes. Thanks for finding the video that MediaSage posted. It was helpful!
ReplyDeleteHi Nicole,
ReplyDeleteI thought that the reading was a good complement to Frick & Boling's on conducting the prototype observation. Regarding the benefits of constructing a paper prototype over an electronic one, I think it gives the designer a more tangible sense of the 'feel' of the site for the user, especially in sequential, practical and functional ways. By physically moving the pages (index pages) and dealing with user input (written entries, or clicks, radio buttons, etc.), the designer/observer gets a real sense of the user's natural sequence of use. This might not be as easily viewed using an electronic interface (but I'm not 100% sure - just my guess). Also, I think the slower pace allows for the 'think aloud' protocol to really be valuable. The speed of electronic interfaces may exceed the users' (and observers') abilities and inclinations to really express their thought processes out loud, thus losing a lot of both the practical and functional elements the usability test is trying to flesh out.
For archiving and record-keeping, I'd have to go with an electronic version - I like to keep good records that document the evolution of the design. And a paper prototype would of course be more of a challenge to archive and access over time.
Nonetheless, as you say, these issues are likely to become clearer once we go through the steps ourselves.
I'll be interested to hear your insights and experiences with paper prototyping!
Nicole, I agree with you and others that the paper prototype seems like a wasted step if you have the skills to create a simple electronic version. Also, I think the electronic version will give the designer a better idea of how users will move through and interact with the site. I realize in our project we create the paper prototype, then a computer prototype, but I would prefer to go straight to the computer. I know that creating a simple Web site template would have been far more efficient for me in the prototyping process.
ReplyDeleteI guess, in a practical sense, we will decide how much time we have, how much money we have and what works best for our audience when choosing the method for pre-design testing.
Michele
Karen - Good arguments for the paper prototype, especially what you said about the "thinking out loud" part of pilot testing. I can see how getting that sort of feedback would be easier with a paper prototype.
ReplyDeleteMichele - Yes! We shall see.
ReplyDelete