I am currently enrolled in ITGM 723, Human-Centered Interactive Design.  Generally, I don’t love “clinical” user testing. I don’t like bringing someone into a room, giving them a task, observing them doing the task, recording the results and creating the analysis. I would rather talk to a few people, talk through the process, what they might like in a product, what’s important to them, etc. However, I know from research a person’s spoken desires and functional desires are two different things. In other words, people have a hard time articulating what they want, but they can usually identify it (in the negative or positive sense) when they see it.

Paper prototyping is a traditional, clinical way of reviewing user needs and refining user experiences. I’ve not used paper prototyping (as a testing mechanism) before. As I read about it, and as I put together my first paper prototype I felt the whole idea was very stupid. To put that much effort into a “functional” prototype that did not move the development needle seemed ludicrous. Even still, I picked a task and created a functional paper prototype.

I went ahead and read other chapters of the book Paper Prototyping by Carolyn Snyder besides the one assigned. Specifically I went through the section on “Deciding Whether to Use Paper.” I begrudgingly agreed and understood what the author was getting at and why she might be a proponent of paper prototyping. I read through the research that shows that low and high fidelity prototypes generally reveal the same problems. And I feel like I understand a little better now.

However, it still bothers me that paper prototyping doesn’t really contribute much to the actual development process. Digital interactive wire frames are more involved to put together, but I think there’s some merit to the fact that I can actually expand on that development and it’s not “wasted time.” Especially in the recent years with the advent of XHTML and CSS – moving information around on the screen is not difficult and layouts can be changed very easily – that’s the point of those technologies. And I understand the author of the book is advocating “rough” paper prototypes and rapid development of those materials, but it still seems like a waste to me.

So all in all, I see how paper prototypes can fit in. I understand the merits, and I see some of the drawbacks. Will I use paper prototyping in my professional career? Probably not much if I do at all. Was it a good exercise to go through? Absolutely. Is it a good tool to have access to? Sure, it’s always good to have another tool available.

Tags: Carolyn Snyder, Human-Centered Design, Paper Prototyping

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 am and is filed under Grad School. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.