Hab gerade einen interessanter Beitrag bei Boxes and Arrows über das Thema Prototyping und Mythos der klaren Klassifizierung nach Low- und Highfidelity gefunden. Zudem wird dargelegt, wann man auf welche Arten von Prototypen zurückgreifen sollte.
“Appropriate fidelity” refers to a level of prototype fidelity that allows you to achieve the goals you’ve set for doing a prototype in the first place. By varying the fidelity of your prototype along the dimensions of visual design and functionality, you make your prototype more effective at achieving some goals and less effective for others.
Low Visual and Low Functional Fidelity
Very low fidelity prototypes are extremely useful to UX designers. Why? They can be made swiftly, changed without repercussion, and still help visualize a concept. Low visual & functional fidelity prototypes are helpful at answering large structural questions. Here are some examples:
- Does the system have all the features required to support the user’s goals?
- Does the workflow make sense at a high level?
- Which UX concept works best?
- Coming to consensus on a UX concept with stakeholders, e.g.”Is this what you meant?”
Low Visual and High Functional Fidelity
In my own practice, this is the type of prototyping I do most often. What I make are interactive, HTML interactive wireframes. Everything is black, white, and gray, but the interactions are extremely close to what they’d be in the developed system. These types of prototypes are effective in many situations:
- Evaluating the usability of proposed designs for new systems
- Exploring isolated interactions as a proof-of-concept
- Validating UX design direction with stakeholders
- Validating the implementation of requirements with stakeholders
- Supplementing printed documentation for development teams
- Performing remote testing
Remote testing has become more and more important over the last several years. At Evantage, we do approximately 75% of our user testing remotely. It would be difficult for us to get good data about our designs for modern, highly interactive sites if we were limited to representing those designs using low-to-medium functional fidelity prototyping techniques such as clickable PDFs or interactive PowerPoint presentations.
I also want to expand on proof-of-concept testing. This technique supports creativity and innovation. By prototyping isolated interactions at a high functional fidelity and testing them with users, I can get really good data about whether that interaction works before I base an entire application around it. This allows me to explore my crazy ideas and find out if they are, in fact, crazy. But if it turns out that those ideas are actually pretty slick, I’ll know that and can release the design with confidence instead of with gritted teeth.
High Visual and Low Functional Fidelity
At first thought, these prototypes may not make much sense. Why bother making something look nice if it doesn’t work? Well, because how something looks can have a huge impact on how easy it is to use. A high visual and low functional fidelity prototype allows you to test that with users. You can print out screen images and do a paper prototype test with them, or you can image map some JPGs and do what I’ve heard termed a “slap and map” test from within a browser.
High Visual and High Functional Fidelity
High visual and functional fidelity prototypes are the Rolls-Royce of prototypes. They take more time and effort to build than a lower fidelity prototype and are correspondingly more complicated to manage. Most of the time, this extra cost isn’t worth it. But there are a few situations where it is:
- Evaluating the usability of proposed UX designs for an existing system
- Performing usability tests with non-savvy user groups
- Supplementing printed documentation for offshore development teams
Prototype testing is all about data, right? In the first two situations above, the prototype’s high visual fidelity reduces the confounding factors a wireframey prototype can introduce into test results, thus maintaining the quality of your data. In the third situation, the high visual fidelity helps minimize the design communication and interpretation problems inherent in offshore development.
Der ganzen Artikel findet man hier:
Integrating Prototyping Into Your Design Process – Boxes and Arrows: The design behind the design.