Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T01:11:14.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PROTOTYPING FOR CHILDREN: UNDERSTANDING HOW FIDELITY AFFECTS CHILDREN'S COMPREHENSION OF PROTOTYPES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Andria Carolynn Codner  and
Carlye Anne Lauff
Andria Carolynn Codner*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
Carlye Anne Lauff
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
*
Codner, Andria Carolynn, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, United States of America, banke122@umn.edu

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.

Testing prototypes with intended end users is critical to the design process. There is limited research on testing prototypes with certain types of end users, specifically children for toy products. Additionally, prototypes evolve in fidelity throughout a project, adding to the complexity in developing best practices for prototype testing. This paper analyzes children's understanding of physical prototypes at various levels of fidelity throughout a university semester-long design project developing wooden toys. Through analyzing students’ feedback on their prototype testing sessions, aspects of the prototypes that aid or inhibit children from understanding both form and function are uncovered. These aspects relate to Norman's principles of interaction and their inclusion in prototypes, specifically mental models, signifiers, and affordances. This paper suggests to include these principles in prototypes early in development to guide the user during testing. The goal of this research is to be a resource for those developing products for children, as well as adding knowledge around prototyping testing at various levels of fidelity.

Keywords

Design methodsDesign practiceIndustrial designChildren
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3005 - 3014
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

Altun, M., Hazar, M., and Hazar, Z. (2016), Investigation of the Effects of Brain Teasers on Attention Spans of Pre-School Children. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(15), pp. 8112–8119.Google Scholar
Banker, A. and Lauff, C. (2022), “Usability testing with children: History of best practices, comparison of methods and gaps in literature” Presented at the DRS2022, Bilbao. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, L. and Phillips, C. (2003), “Aesthetics and Usability: A Look at Color and Balance.” Usability News, 5Google Scholar
Catani, M.B. and Biers, D.W. (1998), Usability Evaluation and Prototype Fidelity: Users and Usability Professionals. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 42, pp. 1331–1335. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129804201901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, T. (2001), “Prototyping is the shorthand of innovation” Des. Manag. J. Former Ser. 12, pp. 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2001.tb00551.xGoogle Scholar
Krishnakumar, S., Berdanier, C., Lauff, C., McComb, C. and Menold, J. (2022), “The story novice designers tell: How rhetorical structures and prototyping shape communication with external audiences” Design Studies, 82, pp.101–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauff, C.A., Knight, D., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M.E. (2020), “The role of prototypes in communication between stakeholders”, Design Studies, 66, pp. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markopoulos, P., Read, J.C., MacFarlane, S. and Hoysniemi, J. (2008), “Evaluating Children's Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers” Elsevier.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2013), “The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition.” Basic Books.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (2004), “Introduction to This Special Section on Beauty, Goodness, and Usability” Hum.-Comput. Interact. 19, pp. 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1904_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PlanToys USA - Wooden Toys for Kids (2022), PlanToys USA. URL https://www.plantoys.com/ (accessed 11.18.22).Google Scholar
Rueda, D., Hoto, R. and Conejero, A. (2013), “Study of the Influence of Prototype Aesthetic Fidelity (A Realism Factor) in Usability Tests” Human Factors in Computing and Informatics 15, pp. 122–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, J. and Sonderegger, A. (2009), “The influence of prototype fidelity and aesthetics of design in usability tests: Effects on user behaviour, subjective evaluation and emotion” Appl. Ergon. 40, pp. 670–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.06.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sefelin, R., Tscheligi, M. and Giller, V. (2003), “Paper prototyping - what is it good for? a comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping” in: CHI ’03 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’03. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 778–779. https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.765986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sim, G., Cassidy, B. and Read, J.C. (2013), “Understanding the fidelity effect when evaluating games with children” in: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York, USA, pp. 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tractinsky, N. (1997), “Aesthetics and apparent usability: empirically assessing cultural and methodological issues” Proceedings of the 1997 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI. pp. 115–122.Google Scholar
Uebelbacher, A., Sonderegger, A. and Sauer, J. (2013), “Effects of Perceived Prototype Fidelity in Usability Testing under Different Conditions of Observer Presence” Interact. Comput. 25, pp. 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iws002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Bergen, E., Vasalampi, K. and Torppa, M. (2020), “How Are Practice and Performance Related? Development of Reading From Age 5 to 15” Read. Res. Q. 56, 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.309Google Scholar
Virzi, R.A. (1989), “What can you Learn from a Low-Fidelity Prototype?” Proc. Hum. Factors Soc. Annu. Meet. 33, pp. 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193128903300405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, M., Takayama, L. and Landay, J.A. (2002), “High-Fidelity or Low-Fidelity, Paper or Computer? Choosing Attributes when Testing Web Prototypes” Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 46, pp. 661–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120204600513CrossRefGoogle Scholar