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 human-computer interaction design—it's how you transform abstract ideas into testable artifacts that reveal what actually works for users. You're being tested not just on knowing what each technique is, but on understanding when and why to deploy each one. The core principles here include fidelity trade-offs, iteration speed, user involvement, and resource allocation—concepts that show up repeatedly in exam questions about design strategy.
Think of prototyping as a spectrum of commitment. At one end, you're sketching disposable ideas on napkins; at the other, you're building near-final systems that evolve into shipped products. The strategic designer knows how to match prototype fidelity to project phase, stakeholder needs, and available resources. Don't just memorize technique names—know what problem each solves and where it fits in the design lifecycle.
These methods prioritize speed and flexibility over polish. The underlying principle: invest minimally until you've validated the concept direction. Use these when you need to generate options, kill bad ideas fast, or involve stakeholders who might be intimidated by polished-looking work.
Compare: Paper Prototyping vs. Wireframing—both are low-fidelity and focus on structure over aesthetics, but paper prototypes are disposable exploration tools while wireframes typically become living documentation that evolves with the project. If asked about stakeholder alignment, wireframes are your answer; for rapid ideation, go with paper.
These techniques represent different points on the fidelity spectrum—the trade-off between realism and flexibility. Higher fidelity yields more accurate user feedback but requires more investment to change.
Compare: Low-Fidelity vs. High-Fidelity Digital Prototyping—both use digital tools, but low-fi prioritizes speed and concept validation while high-fi prioritizes accuracy and detailed feedback. Exam tip: if a question asks about testing "look and feel," high-fidelity is correct; if it asks about testing "core concepts," low-fidelity wins.
These approaches optimize for cycle time—how quickly you can move from idea to test to revision. The mechanism: compress feedback loops to learn faster than competitors.
Compare: Throwaway vs. Evolutionary Prototyping—both involve iteration, but they represent opposite philosophies. Throwaway prototypes are learning instruments you discard; evolutionary prototypes are product seeds you nurture. FRQ angle: if asked about managing technical debt, evolutionary prototyping creates it while throwaway prototyping avoids it.
These techniques address what to prototype rather than how detailed to make it. The strategic choice between breadth and depth depends on your current design questions.
Compare: Horizontal vs. Vertical Prototyping—horizontal answers "what does this product include?" while vertical answers "how does this specific feature work?" Use horizontal when stakeholders need the big picture; use vertical when you need to prove a critical feature is viable.
These methods explicitly center users in the prototyping process. The principle: users aren't just test subjects—they can be co-designers.
Compare: Wizard of Oz vs. Participatory Prototyping—both heavily involve users, but in different roles. Wizard of Oz treats users as test subjects whose behavior validates concepts; participatory prototyping treats users as collaborators whose ideas shape concepts. The first asks "will users accept this?" while the second asks "what do users want?"
Not all interfaces live on screens. These methods address products with physical components or spatial interactions.
Compare: Physical Prototyping vs. Digital Prototyping—physical prototypes test tangible qualities like weight, grip, and spatial relationships; digital prototypes test interface qualities like navigation, feedback, and visual hierarchy. Many products require both.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Early-stage exploration | Paper Prototyping, Storyboarding, Throwaway Prototyping |
| Structural planning | Wireframing, Horizontal Prototyping |
| Detailed user testing | High-Fidelity Digital, Interactive Prototyping |
| Speed optimization | Rapid Prototyping, Low-Fidelity Digital |
| Technical validation | Functional Prototyping, Vertical Prototyping |
| User co-creation | Participatory Prototyping, Wizard of Oz |
| Data-driven refinement | A/B Testing Prototypes |
| Continuous development | Evolutionary Prototyping |
Which two prototyping techniques would you combine if you needed to test a complex AI feature without building the underlying technology, while also ensuring the concept reflects actual user needs?
A stakeholder asks to see "the whole product" before committing to funding. Which prototyping approach addresses this request, and what trade-off does it involve?
Compare and contrast throwaway prototyping and evolutionary prototyping in terms of their relationship to the final shipped product and their implications for technical debt.
You're designing a smart home device with both a physical form factor and a mobile app interface. Which prototyping techniques would you use for each component, and why can't one approach cover both?
An FRQ asks you to recommend a prototyping strategy for a startup with limited resources that needs to validate a risky concept quickly. Which 2-3 techniques would you recommend, in what order, and what does each stage accomplish?