Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T03:55:48.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW SHOULD WE PROTOTYPE? ESTABLISHING THE AFFORDANCES OF PROTOTYPING MEDIA AND APPROACHES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Chris Snider ,
Mark Goudswaard ,
Charlie Ranscombe ,
Chaunpeng Hao ,
James Gopsill  and
Ben Hicks
Chris Snider*
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, UK;
Mark Goudswaard
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, UK;
Charlie Ranscombe
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology, Australia
Chaunpeng Hao
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, UK;
James Gopsill
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, UK;
Ben Hicks
Affiliation:
University of Bristol, UK;
*
Snider, Chris, University of Bristol, United Kingdom, chris.snider@bristol.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The breadth of media and approaches used when prototyping are vast, with each holding inherent properties that vary their suitability for a given prototyping activity.

While several have established classifications of types and purposes of prototypes, there is little by way of guidance for designers on how select and strategise prototyping given their activity needs, or how the prototype chosen may influence their process, success or efficiency.

This paper presents nine affordances of prototypes derived from literature, together characterising the properties of prototyping media or approaches that affect their suitability across prototyping activities.

The affordances are illustrated through application to physical and digital classes of prototypes and four real prototype cases, showing descriptive capability, inherent differences between the media, and enabling direct and consistent comparison.

By mapping affordances across many media and approaches, this work enables better method selection to align with activity needs, better description and comparison of media and approaches, and the ability the broadly interrogate and direct future development of prototyping technologies.

Keywords

PrototypingDesign processDesign methodsEarly design phases
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 2125 - 2134
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ahmed, S., Demirel, H.O., 2020. House of Prototyping Guidelines: A Framework to Develop Theoretical Prototyping Strategies for Human-Centered Design, in: Marcus, A., Rosenzweig, E. (Eds.), Design, User Experience, and Usability. Interaction Design. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49713-2_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bähr, B., Möller, S., 2016. Blended Prototyping, in: Gengnagel, C., Nagy, E., Stark, R. (Eds.), Rethink! Prototyping: Transdisciplinary Concepts of Prototyping. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 129–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24439-6_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordegoni, M., Cugini, U., Caruso, G., Polistina, S., 2009. Mixed prototyping for product assessment: a reference framework. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. IJIDeM 3, 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-009-0073-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., Otto, K., Wood, K., 2017. Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines. Des. Sci. 3, e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christie, E.J., Jensen, D., Buckley, R.T., Menefee, D.A., Ziegler, K., Wood, K., Crawford, R., 2012. Prototyping Strategies: Literature Review and Identification of Critical Variables, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--21848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exner, K., Sternitzke, A., Kind, S., Beckmann-Dobrev, B., 2016. Hybrid Prototyping, in: Gengnagel, C., Nagy, E., Stark, R. (Eds.), Rethink! Prototyping: Transdisciplinary Concepts of Prototyping. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 89–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24439-6_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giunta, L., Gopsill, J., Kent, L., Goudswaard, M., Snider, C., Hicks, B., 2022. Pro2Booth: Towards an Improved Tool for Capturing Prototypes and the Prototyping Process. Proc. Des. Soc. 2, 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Gopsill, J., Harvey, M., Snider, C., Bell, A., Hicks, B., 2021. Revisiting prototyping in 2020: a snapshot of practice in uk design companies. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 2581–2590. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Kent, L., Giunta, L., Gopsill, J., Snider, C., Valjak, F., Christensen, K.A., Felton, H., Ege, D.N., Real, R.M., Cox, C., Horvat, N., Kohtala, S., Eikevåg, S.W., Martinec, T., Perišić, M.M., Steinert, M., Hicks, B., 2022. Virtually Hosted Hackathons for Design Research: Lessons Learned from the International Design Engineering Annual (IDEA) Challenge 2021. Proc. Des. Soc. 2, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallgrimsson, B., 2012. Prototyping and Modelmaking for Product Design: Second Edition. Hachette UK.Google Scholar
Houde, S., Hill, C., 1997. Chapter 16 - What do Prototypes Prototype?, in: Helander, M.G., Landauer, T.K., Prabhu, P.V. (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (Second Edition). North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50082-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isa, S., Liem, A., 2014. Classifying physical models and prototypes in the design process: A study on the economical and usability impact of adopting models and prototypes in the design process. Presented at the DESIGN 2014, Cavtat, Croatia.Google Scholar
Kent, L., Snider, C., Gopsill, J., Hicks, B., 2021a. Mixed reality in design prototyping: A systematic review. Des. Stud. 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, L., Snider, C., Hicks, B., 2021b. Mixed reality prototyping: synchronicity and its impact on a design workflow. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 2117–2126. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liker, J.K., Pereira, R.M., 2018. Virtual and Physical Prototyping Practices: Finding the Right Fidelity Starts With Understanding the Product. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 46, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMR.2018.2873792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., Tenenberg, J., 2008. The anatomy of prototypes: Prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 15, 7:1–7:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1375761.1375762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCurdy, M., Connors, C., Pyrzak, G., Kanefsky, B., Vera, A., 2006. Breaking the fidelity barrier: an examination of our current characterization of prototypes and an example of a mixed-fidelity success, in: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’06. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1233–1242. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menold, J., Jablokow, K., Simpson, T., 2017. Prototype for X (PFX): A holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design. Des. Stud. 50, 70–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pei, E., Campbell, I., Evans, M., 2011. A Taxonomic Classification of Visual Design Representations Used by Industrial Designers and Engineering Designers. Des. J. 14, 64–91. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630610X12877385838803Google Scholar
Petrakis, K., Hird, A., Wodehouse, A., 2019. The Concept of Purposeful Prototyping: Towards a New Kind of Taxonomic Classification. Proc. Des. Soc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. 1, 1643–1652. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Real, R., Snider, C., Goudswaard, M., Hicks, B., 2021. Dimensions of knowledge in prototyping: a review and characterisation of prototyping methods and their contributions to design knowledge. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 1303–1312. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, C., Kent, L., Goudswaard, M., Hicks, B., 2022. Integrated Physical-Digital Workflow in Prototyping – Inspirations from the Digital Twin. Proc. Des. Soc. 2, 1767–1776. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, D., 2008. Investigating the Role of Prototyping in Mechanical Design Using Case Study Validation. Clemson University.Google Scholar
Tseng, M., Jiao, J., Su, C.-J., 1997. A framework of virtual design for product customization. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA.1997.616234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D., 2016. Product design and development, Sixth edition. ed. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Verlinden, J., Horváth, I., 2009. Analyzing opportunities for using interactive augmented prototyping in design practice. AI EDAM 23, 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060409000250Google Scholar
Yang, M.C., 2008. An Examination of Prototyping and Design Outcome. Presented at the ASME 2004 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, pp. 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2004-57552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Ranscombe, C., Radcliffe, D., Jackson, S., 2019. Creation of a Framework of Design Tool Characteristics to Support Evaluation and Selection of Visualisation Tools. Proc. Des. Soc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. 1, 1115–1124. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorriassatine, F., Wykes, C., Parkin, R., Gindy, N., 2003. A survey of virtual prototyping techniques for mechanical product development. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 217, 513–530. https://doi.org/10.1243/095440503321628189CrossRefGoogle Scholar