Jennifer Garnett

Research shows that mixed fidelity prototypes are the most effective for testing a mobile application. In a study done by Marco de Sa and Elizabeth Churchill, in which they compared low, mixed and high fidelity prototypes, they discovered that for the mixed fidelity prototype “not only were users able to understand the concept that was being shown very quickly, but this approach also afforded the detection of usability and design issues, triggering users imagination at the same time.” (de Sa & Churchill, 2012).

 

I chose to prepare my prototype in a mixed fidelity format because I wanted to make sure that the users did not have any questions about the concept for the system, but would feel as though it was still unrefined enough that they could make suggestions for improvement. My prototype is digital (high fidelity), but with low fidelity graphics, and only partial functionality. The low fidelity graphical presentation indicates to users that the system is still being developed and that their feedback is required. According to de Sa and Churchill, “[with high fidelity prototypes] users’ expectations are raised to higher levels, requiring care with the fidelity of some of the features and the fluidity of the interactive elements.” (2012) The use of lower fidelity graphics and partial functionality prevents the users from expecting the system to perform as a fully completed system, and to therefore provide more honest and useful feedback about the functionality of the system itself, without being concerned about the aesthetics of the system.

 

I chose to use a low fidelity digital prototype for testing purposes. Although there is much industry support for paper prototyping in the early testing phases (Nielsen, 2003), I felt as though for my project, a digital prototype was the better choice for the following reasons:

• Initially, I showed some of my sketches to some of the same users who would be doing the testing. I wanted to provide the next step in the iteration of the system in order to elicit additional feedback regarding the actual interactions between screens.

• It is easier to show interactions with a digital prototype. I wanted it to be clear to the users what would happen if they clicked a button. Using a digital prototype allows the users to interact with the system most similarly to how they would use it once it is finalized. This would allow me to discover any usability issues related to the actual interactions (as opposed to any that may have appeared to be there due to the difficulty of moving bits of paper around).

• Updates and future iterations are easier to create with a digital prototype. I chose to create my prototype using Balsamiq, which is an online prototyping tool that combines the pros of paper prototyping (lower fidelity, quick iterations) with the pros of digital prototyping (consistency and collaboration, to name a few). Balsamiq makes use of a drag and drop interface builder, which allows for quick and easy changes to elements, while still maintaining consistency. If I decided to change something in the prototype, I could very quickly and easily replace the item, often with just a few mouse clicks or hot keys, rather than having to re-draw, cut, and glue the physical elements in a paper prototype. Annotation was also simple, as notes could be added directly to each individual screen.

• Presentation, sharing, collaboration and remote testing are made possible (or easier) with digital prototypes. I can access my prototype on the web from any computer, rather than having to carry the paper (and possibly losing or damaging it). I can share the link with my participants or anyone else from whom I would like to receive feedback, without showing it to them in person or creating multiple copies of the prototype. My final presentation for this course will be remote, so having a digital prototype to show during the presentation simplifies that process. If any of my users become unavailable to meet for in-person testing, I have the option to do remote testing with the digital prototype.

 

Using a digital prototype that is low fidelity combines the best features of paper prototypes (time and money saving), with the addition of the benefits above.

 

The scope of this project is such that I did not have time to make a fully functioning prototype for all possible interactions within the system. I chose to focus on the three main tasks the users wanted to accomplish:

• Tracking skater attendance/participation

• Verify skater eligibility

• Generate, View, and share reports of above

 

Additionally, since I plan to conduct in-person testing where possible, if users encounter a feature that has limited (or no) functionality in the prototype, I plan to ask them what they think would happen when they choose those options, and their feedback for the interactions.

 

The interactive digital prototype can be viewed HERE 

 

A video demonstration of the prototype can be found HERE

 

 

References:

 

de Sa, M., & Churchill, E. (2012, September). Mobile augmented reality: exploring design and prototyping techniques. 14th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, San Francisco. doi: 10.1145/2371574.2371608

 

 

For a full discussion of the prototype and prototyping strategy, please donwload the full version of M4 here: