Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success

This paper presents a summary of the space of commonly-used HCI prototyping methods (low-fidelity to high-fidelity) and asserts that with a better understanding of this space, HCI practitioners will be better equipped to direct scarce prototyping resources toward an effort likely to yield specific results. It presents a set of five dimensions along which prototypes can be planned and characterized. The paper then describes an analysis of this space performed by members of the NASA Ames Human-Computer Interaction Group when considering prototyping approaches for a new set of tools for Mars mission planning and scheduling tools. A description is presented of a prototype that demonstrates design solutions that would have been particularly difficult to test given conventional low- or mid- fidelity prototyping methods. The prototype created was "mixed-fidelity," that is, high-fidelity on some dimensions and low-fidelity on others. The prototype is compared to a preexisting tool being redesigned and to a tool that has been developed using the prototype. Experimental data are presented that show the prototype to be a good predictor of eventual user performance with the final application. Given the relative cost of developing prototypes, it is critical to better characterize the space of fidelity in order to more precisely allocate design and development resources.

[1]  Mark W. Newman,et al.  DENIM: finding a tighter fit between tools and practice for Web site design , 2000, CHI.

[2]  Demetrios Karis,et al.  Usability problem identification using both low- and high-fidelity prototypes , 1996, CHI.

[3]  Bonnie E. John,et al.  Multipurpose prototypes for assessing user interfaces in pervasive computing systems , 2005, IEEE Pervasive Computing.

[4]  Ari K. Jónsson,et al.  MAPGEN: Mixed-Initiative Planning and Scheduling for the Mars Exploration Rover Mission , 2004, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[5]  Jesse James Garrett Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications , 2007 .

[6]  Roger R. Hall,et al.  Prototyping for usability of new technology , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  Hal Berghel New wave prototyping: use and abuse of vacuous prototypes , 1994, INTR.

[8]  C. Floyd A Systematic Look at Prototyping , 1984 .

[9]  James R. Rudd,et al.  Twenty-two tips for a happier, healthier prototype , 1994, INTR.

[10]  Nick Bryan-Kinns,et al.  One for all and all for one?: case studies of using prototypes in commercial projects , 2002, NordiCHI '02.

[11]  Charles Hill,et al.  What do Prototypes Prototype , 1997 .

[12]  James A. Landay,et al.  Sketching Interfaces: Toward More Human Interface Design , 2001, Computer.

[13]  Kenneth R. Stern,et al.  Low vs. high-fidelity prototyping debate , 1996, INTR.

[14]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Are informal tools better?: comparing DEMAIS, pencil and paper, and authorware for early multimedia design , 2003, CHI '03.

[15]  Marc Rettig,et al.  Prototyping for tiny fingers , 1994, CACM.

[16]  Manfred Tscheligi,et al.  Paper prototyping - what is it good for?: a comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.