Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Prototyping sits at the heart of the creative development process because it transforms abstract ideas into something tangible—something you can test, critique, and improve. You're being tested on your understanding of when to use each method, why certain approaches work better at different stages, and how prototyping connects to broader concepts like iterative design, user-centered development, and design thinking. The exam will expect you to match prototyping methods to specific scenarios and explain the trade-offs between fidelity, speed, and feedback quality.
Don't just memorize the names of these methods—know what problem each one solves and where it fits in the development timeline. Understanding the relationship between fidelity level, resource investment, and feedback type will help you tackle any question about prototyping strategy. When you see a scenario asking which method to use, think: How far along is the project? What kind of feedback do we need? What resources do we have?
These methods prioritize speed and flexibility over polish. The underlying principle is that early-stage ideas need rapid validation before committing significant resources. Use these when you're still figuring out what to build.
Compare: Paper Prototyping vs. Storyboarding—both are low-cost and early-stage, but paper prototyping tests interface interactions while storyboarding tests user journeys and context. If an FRQ asks about understanding user emotions or scenarios, storyboarding is your answer.
These methods establish the architectural foundation of a design. The principle here is that function must be validated before form—you need to know what goes where before deciding how it looks.
Compare: Wireframing vs. Low-Fidelity Digital Prototyping—wireframes are typically static structural documents, while low-fi digital prototypes can include basic interactivity. Choose wireframes for layout approval, low-fi digital for early interaction testing.
These methods add visual detail to communicate design intent more precisely. The principle is that stakeholders and users respond differently to polished visuals—higher fidelity generates more specific, actionable feedback about aesthetics.
Compare: Mockups vs. High-Fidelity Prototypes—both look polished, but mockups are static images while high-fi prototypes include interaction. Use mockups for visual sign-off, high-fi prototypes for realistic usability testing.
These methods test how users actually engage with a product. The principle is that static representations can't reveal usability problems—you need to observe users clicking, tapping, and navigating.
Compare: Clickable Prototypes vs. Interactive Prototypes—clickable prototypes test navigation paths, while interactive prototypes test the full experience including animations and dynamic elements. Interactive prototypes require more investment but catch more subtle usability issues.
These methods emphasize speed and iteration over any single output. The principle is that the development process itself—not just the artifacts—determines success.
Compare: Rapid Prototyping vs. Paper Prototyping—both prioritize speed, but rapid prototyping is a mindset applicable to any fidelity level, while paper prototyping is a specific low-fidelity technique. Rapid prototyping asks "how fast can we learn?" regardless of medium.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Early-stage exploration | Paper Prototyping, Storyboarding, User Flow Diagrams |
| Structural planning | Wireframing, Low-Fidelity Digital Prototyping |
| Visual communication | Mockups, High-Fidelity Digital Prototyping |
| Interaction testing | Clickable Prototypes, Interactive Prototyping |
| Process methodology | Rapid Prototyping |
| Stakeholder presentations | Mockups, High-Fidelity Digital Prototyping |
| User journey mapping | Storyboarding, User Flow Diagrams |
| Low resource investment | Paper Prototyping, Wireframing, Storyboarding |
Which two prototyping methods would you use if you needed to validate a concept quickly with minimal resources, and what trade-off are you accepting by choosing them over higher-fidelity options?
A design team has finalized their wireframes and needs stakeholder approval on visual direction before building anything interactive. Which method should they use, and why is it more appropriate than high-fidelity prototyping at this stage?
Compare and contrast clickable prototypes and interactive prototypes. In what scenario would the additional investment in interactive prototyping be justified?
If an FRQ describes a team struggling to communicate the emotional journey of a user through their app, which prototyping method best addresses this problem, and how does it differ from user flow diagrams?
A startup with limited time and budget needs to test whether users can complete a checkout process. Rank three prototyping methods from least to most appropriate for this scenario, explaining your reasoning.