Physical Fidelity: Exploring the Importance of Physicality on Physical-Digital Conceptual Prototyping

The physicality of digital-physical devices is an essential part of our interaction and understanding of information appliances. This paper draws on the findings of an empirical study investigating the effect of physical fidelity on a series of user trials. Three prototypes of a single design intent were built, the standard of their construction dictated by the time imposed on the designer. In choosing this constraint, the authors present the argument that the most important driver in decisions that dictate fidelity levels is the available and/or necessary time required for making a prototype in order to generate information of the right quality. This paper presents the empirical and qualitative results of the trials, which suggest that there is little effect of fidelity on user performance, but the user's ability to give constructive feedback on the design was influenced by the nature of the prototypes.

[1]  Masitah Ghazali,et al.  Physicality 2006: First International Workshop on Physicality , 2006 .

[2]  Devina Ramduny-Ellis,et al.  Second International Workshop on Physicality , 2007 .

[3]  Dana Chisnell,et al.  Handbook of Usability Testing , 2009 .

[4]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Reflective physical prototyping through integrated design, test, and analysis , 2006, UIST.

[5]  Donald A. Norman The next UI breakthrough, part 2: physicality , 2007, INTR.

[6]  NormanDon The next UI breakthrough , 2007 .

[7]  Jeffrey Rubin,et al.  Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests , 1994 .

[8]  Joseph S. Dumas,et al.  Usability in practice: formative usability evaluations - evolution and revolution , 2002, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[9]  Youn-Kyung Lim,et al.  Comparative analysis of high- and low-fidelity prototypes for more valid usability evaluations of mobile devices , 2006, NordiCHI '06.

[10]  Steve Gill Developing information appliance design tools for designers , 2003, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

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

[12]  Dennis R. Wixon,et al.  CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2002, CHI 2002.

[13]  Darren Walker,et al.  Rapid development of tangible interactive appliances: achieving the fidelity/time balance , 2008, Int. J. Arts Technol..

[14]  Carolyn Snyder,et al.  Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces , 2003 .

[15]  Guy Pyrzak,et al.  Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success , 2006, CHI.

[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.

[17]  Mikael B. Skov,et al.  Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Interaction design and children , 2007 .

[18]  Michael Schrage,et al.  Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate , 1999 .

[19]  Saul Greenberg,et al.  Phidgets: easy development of physical interfaces through physical widgets , 2001, UIST '01.

[20]  Winslow Burleson,et al.  Sprock-it: a physically interactive play system , 2007, IDC.