Prototyping

Material Drawn from:

James Landay, Berkeley Univ. John Kelleher, IT Sligo

2

Hall of Fame or Shame?

Password dialog in Eudora Pro for Mac

3

Hall of Fame!

Password dialog in Eudora Pro for Mac

Most passwords are mixed case caps lock often leads to

failure to authenticate Good idea to inform user that

Caps Lock is on Flashing and “!” unnecessary

4

Outline

Low-fi prototyping Wizard of Oz technique Informal UI prototyping tools Hi-fi prototyping What prototyping tools lack

5

Why Do We Prototype?

Experiment with alternative designs Get feedback on our design faster

fix problems before code is written saves money

Keep the design centered on the user must test & observe ideas with users

6

Types of Prototypes

Vertical Cutting down on number of features. Results in a narrow system that does include

depth of functionality, but only for a few selected features

Can only test a limited part of the system However, that part will be tested in depth under

realistic circumstances

7

Types of Prototypes

Horizontal Reducing level of functionality Result is a surface layer that include the entire

user interface to a full featured system However: no underlying functionality Low-level fidelity mockups best suited

8

9

Fidelity in Prototyping

Fidelity refers to the level of detail

High fidelity?

prototypes look like the final product

Low fidelity?

artists renditions with many details missing

10

Low-fi Sketches & Storyboards

11

Low-fi Sketches & Storyboards

Where do storyboards come from? film & animation

Give you a “script” of important events leave out the details concentrate on the important interactions

12

Ink Chat

13

Why Use Low-fi Prototypes?

Traditional methods take too long sketches -> prototype -> evaluate -> iterate

Can instead simulate the prototype sketches -> evaluate -> iterate sketches act as prototypes

designer “plays computer” other design team members observe & record

Kindergarten implementation skills allows non-programmers to participate

14

Hi-fi Prototypes Warp Perceptions of the tester/reviewer

representation communicates “finished” comments focus on color, fonts, & alignment

Time encourage precision

specifying details takes more time

Creativity lose track of the big picture

15

The Basic Materials Large, heavy, white paper (11 x 17) 5x8 in. index cards Post-its Tape, stick glue, correction tape Pens & markers (many colors & sizes) Overhead transparencies Scissors, X-acto knives, etc.

16from “Prototyping for Tiny Fingers” by Rettig

17ESP

18

Constructing the Model Set a deadline

don’t think too long - build it!

Draw a window frame on large paper Put different screen regions on cards

anything that moves, changes, appears/disappears

Ready response for any user action e.g., have those pull-down menus already made

Use photocopier to make many versions

19

Preparing for a Test Select your users

understand background of intended users use a questionnaire to get the people you need don’t use friends or family

I think “customers” are OK (Rettig disagrees)

Prepare scenarios that are typical of the product during actual use make prototype support these (small, yet broad)

Practice to avoid “bugs”

20

Conducting a Test Four testers (minimum)

greeter – puts users at ease & gets data facilitator – only team member who speaks

gives instructions & encourages thoughts, opinions

computer – knows application logic & controls it always simulates the response, w/o explanation

observers – take notes & recommendations Typical session is 1 hour

preparation, the test, debriefing

21

Evaluating Results Sort & prioritize observations

what was important? lots of problems in the same area?

Create a written report on findings gives agenda for meeting on design changes

Make changes & iterate

22

Advantages of Low-fi Prototyping

Takes only a few hours no expensive equipment needed

Can test multiple alternatives fast iterations

number of iterations is tied to final quality

Almost all interaction can be faked

23

Designing a content pageUsing low-fi techniques

Combine low-fi paper prototyping and card sorting Start with a page with all the features you might

want Cut it up into pieces Have people arrange the components

One set of users sorts into groups, as in card sorting for categories

Another set of users lays out the information in a way that would work well for them given certain tasks.

24

25

26

Wizard of Oz Technique Faking the interaction. Comes from?

the film “The Wizard of OZ” “the man behind the curtain”

Long tradition in computer industry e.g., prototype of a PC w/ a VAX behind the

curtain Much more important for hard to

implement features speech & handwriting recognition

27

Informal UI Prototyping Tools

Support advantages of low-fi paper prototypes brainstorming

consider different ideas rapidly do not require specification of details

incomplete designs need not cover all cases, just illustrate important examples

Add advantages of electronic tools evolve easily support for “design memory” transition to other electronic tools allow end-user interaction

28

Designers’ Outpost:A Tangible Interface for Designing Information Architectures

Combines physical & virtual physical post-its, virtual feedback

Supports existing practice affordances of paper collaboration large, persistent representation

Adds advantages of e-media editing, reuse, distribution hand-off later to other tools

29

DENIM: Designing Web Sites by Sketching A research effort at UCB intended to combine the

best of paper and computers Allows for free-hand sketching But also allows for undo, copies, etc.

Has a storyboarding facility Can help design the interactions for the person playing

computer

Early-phase navigation & interaction design

Integrates multiple views site map – storyboard – page sketch

30

Problems with Low-fi Prototypes “Computer” inherently buggy Slow compared to real app

timings not accurate Hard to implement some

functionality pulldowns, feedback, drag, viz …

Won’t look like final product sometimes hard to recognize

widgets End-users can’t use by themselves

not in context of user’s work environment

31

Why Build Hi-fi Prototypes?

Paper mock-ups don’t always go far enough how would you show a drag operation? not realistic of how interface will be used

Building final app. now is a mistake changes in the UI can cause huge code changes

need to convince programmer & hope they get it right takes too much time

Drag & drop prototyping tool appropriate but only after we have iterated on design throws up interesting results

32

Why Use Tools (rather than code)? Faster Easier to incorporate testing changes Multiple UIs for same application Consistent user interfaces Easier to involve variety of specialists Separation of UI code from app. code

easier to change and maintain

More reliable bugs found in the tool are fixed for all applications

33

Prototyping Tools (historical) HyperCard

for Macintosh – built by Bill Atkinson metaphor: card transitions on button clicks comes with widget set drawing & animation limited

Director most commonly used by designers intended for multimedia -> until recently lacked

interface widgets or controls good for non-widget UIs

Both have “scripting” languages

34

HyperCard

35

Director

36

Authorware

37

Other tools

Formula Graphics Multimedia http://www.formulagraphics.com

Microsoft Powerpoint (msdn blog)

Asymetrix Toolbook http://www.asymetrix.com/en/toolbook/index.asp

38

UI Builders

Visual Basic lots of widgets (AKA controls) simple language slower than other UI builders

NeXT UIB, SpecTCL, PowerBuilder... widgets sets easily connect to code via “callbacks” “commercial” strength languages

39

What’s the Difference?

Performance prototyping tools produce slow programs UI builders depend on underlying language

Widgets prototyping tools may not have complete set UI builders have widget set common to platform

Insides of application UIBs do little, prototypers offer some support

Final product generally use UI builders, though occasionally see things

created in a prototyping tool (multimedia)

40

What is Missing?

Support for the “insides” of applications

41

Summary

Low-fi testing allows us to quickly iterate get feedback from users & change right away

Informal prototyping tools bridge the gap between paper & high-fi tools

High-fi UI tools good for testing more developed UI ideas generally ignore the “insides” of application

42

Further ReadingPrototyping

Articles “Prototyping for Tiny Fingers” by Marc Rettig, in

Communications of the ACM, 1994 “Using Paper Prototypes to Manage Risk” by Carolyn Snyder,

http://world.std.com/~uieweb/paper.htm “The Perils of Prototyping” by Alan Cooper,

http://www.chi-sa.org.za/Documents/articles/perils.htm Web Sites

Group for User Interface Research, for DENIM & SUEDE downloads, http://guir.berkeley.edu

InfoDesign Toolkit, http://www.infodesign.com.au