{"id":27870,"date":"2022-08-09T16:30:53","date_gmt":"2022-08-09T15:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.intercom.com\/blog\/?p=27870"},"modified":"2024-10-22T17:52:59","modified_gmt":"2024-10-22T16:52:59","slug":"design-fidelity-user-testing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.intercom.com\/blog\/design-fidelity-user-testing\/","title":{"rendered":"Valuable insights at the right time: Determining the ideal level of design fidelity for user testing"},"content":{"rendered":"

At Intercom, one of our product development principles is think big, start small, learn fast<\/a>.<\/p>\n

One of the ways we learn fast is by carrying out evaluative research to build confidence in the product design direction we\u2019re pursuing. We often aim to get product concepts in front of users very early in the product development process, long before any code has been written.<\/p>\n

This approach to user testing poses an important and ongoing question \u2013 what\u2019s the right level of design fidelity to present to your research participants? How close to the final design do those concepts need to be in order to elicit accurate insights from those who are testing them? How do you find the right balance between \u201ccrude but early\u201d on the one hand and \u201cpolished but late\u201d on the other? What level of design abstraction hits the sweet spot?<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve found it\u2019s helpful to avoid using the term \u2018<\/span>design\u2019 when talking internally about what to show participants \u2013 we prefer to use \u2018<\/span>research stimulus\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Words matter<\/h2>\n

First of all, although we talk about design fidelity, we\u2019ve found it\u2019s helpful to avoid using the term \u201cdesign\u201d when talking internally about what to show participants during user testing \u2013 we prefer to use \u201cresearch stimulus\u201d. Terms like \u201cresearch stimulus\u201d or \u201cprovocation artefact\u201d, while sounding a bit wonky, help communicate that the thing you\u2019re going to show a participant is a tool to elicit insights on an overall concept, rather than specific design features.<\/p>\n

Identify the problem<\/h2>\n

It can be tempting to use the latest, most polished design files available when creating the research stimulus, but this comes with certain costs that have to be considered. Participants will pay attention to the highest level of fidelity that you provide \u2013 if you\u2019re interested in whether a concept has value, hearing participants\u2019 comments about microcopy on a CTA is likely to add noise to the feedback you\u2019re looking for.<\/p>\n

Instead, we\u2019ve found it’s helpful to start with the problem \u2013 what we\u2019re trying to learn about \u2013 and match that to the fidelity of what we show research participants during user testing.<\/p>\n

So to determine the correct design fidelity, you need to identify which of the following problems you are trying to solve:<\/p>\n