The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Paper prototyping - what is it good for?: a comparison of paper- and computer-based low-fidelity prototyping
Abstract
This study investigated the differences between computer-based and paper-based low-fidelity prototypes. It researched whether subjects confronted with these two kinds of prototypes differ in their willingness to criticize a system and to give suggestions for its improvement. The chosen approach was an empirical study including test sessions using both kinds of prototypes. Quantitative and qualitative methods were applied to measure and to explain possible differences.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sefelin et al. reports that the number of suggestions and critiques do not significantly differ between prototypes with a high vs. low degree of refinement.
“Sefelin et al. reports on a study on usability testing with prototypes where the number of suggestions and critiques do not significantly differ between prototypes with a high vs. low degree of refinement, i.e. between deep or shallow prototypes.”
From An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study (2023) · cites this paper as Sefelin et al. 2003
Users preferred testing with a prototype with a high degree of interactive refinement since this provided freedom to explore the system by themselves.
“However, the users preferred testing with a prototype with a high degree of interactive refinement since this provided freedom to explore the system by themselves (Sefelin et al. 2003).”
From An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study (2023) · cites this paper as Sefelin et al. 2003
Sefelin et al. suggest selecting prototype media based on factors including the competence of those constructing the prototype, the abilities of the available prototyping tools, and the envisioned continuation of the prototyping.
“While paper sketches are often cheaper and faster to construct, Sefelin et al. suggest selecting prototype media based on a number of factors, including the competence of those constructing the prototype, the abilities of the available prototyping tools, and the envisioned continuation of the prototyping.”
From An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study (2023) · cites this paper as Sefelin et al. 2003
Computer-based prototypes tended to yield more comments on graphical details, while paper sketches stimulated participants to a greater willingness to draw their suggestions.
“However, the computerbased prototypes tended to yield more comments on graphical details, while the paper sketches stimulated participant to”
From An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study (2023) · cites this paper as Sefelin et al. 2003
Sefelin et al. compared paper sketches to computer-based prototypes of identical breadth and level of refinement, and the results showed no major differences in obtained feedback depending on prototype media.
“These prototypes were used for usability testing, and the results showed no major differences in the obtained feedback depending on prototype media.”
From An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study (2023) · cites this paper as Sefelin et al. 2003
Studies report contradicting results on the relationship between prototype scope and the feedback that can be obtained, and thus the purpose that can be fulfilled.
“Furthermore, we note that studies report contradicting results on the relationship between prototype scope and the feedback that can be obtained, and thus the purpose that can be fulfilled.”
From An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study (2023) · cites this paper as Sefelin et al. 2003
Citations
Cites
SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale
(1996) · Usability Evaluation In Industry · doi:10.1201/9781498710411-35 · Cited by 8,989
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mohr, D. C., Lyon, A. R., Lattie, E. G., Reddy, M., & Schueller, S. M. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7725 · Cited by 432
Getting the right design and the design right
Tohidi, M., Buxton, W., Baecker, R., & Sellen, A. (2006) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1124772.1124960 · Cited by 211
Social Simulacra: Creating Populated Prototypes for Social Computing Systems
Park, J. S., Popowski, L., Cai, C., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2022) · Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3526113.3545616 · Cited by 212
An empirically based model of software prototyping: a mapping study and a multi-case study
Bjarnason, E., Lang, F., & Mjöberg, A. (2023) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-023-10331-w · Cited by 75
Reza, M., Laundry, N. M., Musabirov, I., Dushniku, P., Yu, Z. Y. “., Mittal, K., Grossman, T., Liut, M., Kuzminykh, A., & Williams, J. J. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641899 · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Sefelin, R., Tscheligi, M., & Giller, V.
- Affiliations
- Center for Usability Research and Engineering (AT)
- Venue
- CHI '03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '03
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2003
- Pages
- 778
- OpenAlex
- W2119035727
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 13
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Keywords
- paper prototyping, low-fidelity prototypes, user feedback, usability evaluation, user suggestions, human-computer interaction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
