Rethinking paper prototyping: why, when, and how

Hsin-Yu Yang
UX Collective
Published in
6 min readMar 6, 2020

--

Annie Yang’s note on paper prototyping
This #Rethinking series will be my reflection on what I have learned in my current master's studies in HCI. I will be citing a lot and reflecting tons.

I didn’t know paper prototyping before. In the design world where everyone is striving for a digital presence, it was almost intuitive for me to relate prototyping to the high-fidelity interactive prototyping.

So, I first REALLY heard about the tool in my Interaction Design class, and as a student returning from work, I tried my best to learn everything — I know how precious it is to be a student again.

As recommended by our Professor Tawanna, there were quite some times when we spent TONS of energy creating our paper prototyping and going back to our intended users to do basic testing.

And how did that feel? Good but tired.

Why? Because as a human being almost grown up with digital tools, it had been quite a long time since I made some papercrafts — I mean, functioning crafts made with paper.

The followings are my dramatic inner voice in the beginning before I truly learned the concept:

  1. Seriously? Am I going back to using papers to making an interface?
  2. Oh, why don’t I just use a digital application when I can even later easily edit it?
  3. Bringing those paper crafts around to find your user? Come on!

However, the followings are what I found after I practised paper prototyping myself:

  1. It helped me to think the product flow in an experimental way, which brings me closer to the spirit of user-centred design.
  2. It helped me to interact with my users with a more “participatory” way. I could directly observe their facial expression and saw where they paused in a clearer way because the low fidelity just maximized every interaction users can take.

What does prototyping do?

Prototyping is a chance to validate whether your idea matches users’ thoughts or how this version help users solve problems.

To answer this question, I went back to the book written by Todd Zaki Warfel “Prototyping”, a dedicated book about prototyping (obviously).

One of the greatest value of prototyping in general, regardless of paper or digital, is that it can help reduce misinterpretation because no one wants to read hundreds of pages to know how an interface “works” (Warfel, 2009).

Also, it can help to spot mistakes through users’ interaction with the prototyping (Warfel, 2009). For me, prototyping is a chance to validate whether your idea matches users’ thoughts or how this version help users solve problems, so I really recommend using this concept to talk to users more often.

What does a paper prototyping do?

By having a paper prototype and having your intended users to test it, you are creating a collaborative space where your users can participate in the design process by providing feedback and physically experimenting with the prototype.

So, how is paper prototyping different from other prototyping tools?

Warfel listed some strengths of paper prototyping such as versatile (you can make the paper a thousand ways if you want), inexpensive (needless to say, these stationery items are easy to get and use) (Warfel, 2009). Also, Warfel mentions a feature that I think is very important in paper prototyping — collaborative (Warfel, 2009).

By having a paper prototype and having your intended users to test it, you are creating a collaborative space where your users can participate in the design process by providing feedback and physically experimenting with the prototype.

This idea is an extension from Participatory Design, a concept that includes all of the stakeholders in the design process and aims to incorporate users’ “tacit knowledge” to researchers’ analytical knowledge, according to Spinuzzi in The Methodology of Participatory Design (Spinuzzi, 2005). This idea, from my understanding, means to invite users directly into the design process because some of the subtle knowledge of users’ work is hard to describe and grasp through user interviews, and can only be demonstrated through their interaction with prototyping.

But paper prototypes are hard to make…

My very own experience of making paper prototyping is very interesting. First of all, I personally love to make paper crafts when I was little, so it was not that difficult in terms of the action of making crafts. However, it took me a long time to figure out how to make the papercraft “more functional” to correspond to swiping, saved, applied etc. I did go back to Warfel’s book for some inspiration. In my own paper prototyping, I mainly used the mobile sized cards, lots of post-it notes, and transparencies.

My experience of inviting my users to interact with my paper prototype is also a HECTIC experience for me. Why? The reason is, in the paper prototyping, the executor (me, the creator) needs to be very clear with each step of the prototyping process so that when users tap on a button, I will know how to respond. In this process, I also need to learn to organize the small components to have a smoother prototyping process. Meanwhile, I need to sort out the interaction processes to better facilitate the testing with users.

My documentary photo of my paper prototyping components for my designer mentorship app
My paper prototyping about my design mentorship project

When it makes sense to create paper prototypes

These are some takeaway I got to from my experience of making paper prototypes. I think they are more about balancing the creativity and rational planning what is best for your project.

Be creative and give it a try

When I was making a “swiping” action in the prototyping, I made a slip of paper that can go in and out of another paper to mimic the swiping effect. Paper prototyping is actually like a paper game — the more playful you feel when creating it, the more interaction you might get from users.

Think ahead about what could be reused

……so that you can make some components in paper. It is a good training to plan the overall design, although, at this stage, I don’t recommend to go too deep into details of components, but having a rough sense of how it can be used is always good.

Remember your job as a computer & an observer

To help users interact with the paper prototyping, I recommend the creator being the “computer” to users’ action because the creator knows the whole flow most. Although, at the same time, don’t forget to observe their emotion, their facial expression and where they look confused etc.

Also, don’t lead their interaction with your prototype. I made some mistakes by explaining beforehand how the paper worked to my invited users, which I think should have been avoided. The thing is, you want to see what they will tap and what they react under a natural condition.

Prior your testing with users

Make a list of interaction to test

I was glad I had made a list of interactions to test beforehand, which saved time and my mental energy to help me more focused on users’ reaction.

So, be sure you are super familiar with how your prototyping works and the flow, and also makes a list of what you want to test with users beforehand.

Know your goal and prepare a list of questions for feedback

I feel like I should have quickly asked their feedback right after each interaction, instead of in the end.

So, in order to get most out of the prototyping, I would recommend setting a goal for the prototyping first and prepare a list of questions you want to know about your users beforehand.

As a designer, it is very important to use different approaches to interact with users and test ideas around. Paper prototyping is just a handy tool at hand that can assist designers to get a bit closer to the solution to improve users’ life. In the end, no matter which tool we use in each project, it’s important that we always remember to come back to users and get to know them more, because humans are the centre of the product.

References:

Warfel, T. Z. (2009). Prototyping: a practitioner’s guide. Rosenfeld media.

Spinuzzi, C. (2005). The methodology of participatory design. Technical communication, 52(2), 163–174.

--

--