Usability Evaluation: Please Respond To The Following Softwa

Usability Evaluationplease Respond To The Followingsoftware Desig

Usability Evaluationplease Respond To The Followingsoftware Desig

"Usability Evaluation" Please respond to the following: Software design engineers use different data gathering techniques for establishing requirements. Requirements come in many different forms and levels of abstraction, but need to be very specific and unambiguous. Of the two different kinds of requirements (functional and non-functional), speculate the challenges you may see in capturing both requirements. Provide a rationale for your response. Low-fidelity prototypes are mainly used to conduct research on a product and are not integrated into the final product, while high-fidelity prototypes may evolve into a final product.

Compare and contrast the final product that evolves from a high-fidelity product and a product built from the ground up after studying and learning from a low-fidelity prototype. Provide one(1) example of each type of product to support your response.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

In the realm of software engineering, the process of capturing requirements is foundational to the success of any project. Requirements define what a software product should do and how it should perform, serving as the blueprint for the development process. These requirements can be broadly categorized into functional and non-functional types, each presenting unique challenges during their elicitation and specification. Additionally, the use of prototypes at different fidelity levels—low and high—plays a significant role in shaping the final product, influencing design decisions, stakeholder buy-in, and development efficiency. This paper explores the challenges in capturing both functional and non-functional requirements, and compares the evolution of products from high-fidelity prototypes versus products developed from scratch based on insights gained from low-fidelity prototypes.

Challenges in Capturing Functional and Non-Functional Requirements

The process of gathering requirements involves eliciting detailed information from stakeholders, subject matter experts, and end-users to inform software design. Functional requirements specify the specific behaviors or functions that a system must perform, such as data processing, user interactions, and operational workflows. Non-functional requirements, on the other hand, specify qualities or constraints like performance, usability, security, and maintainability. Each brings distinct challenges.

One of the main challenges in capturing functional requirements is ensuring completeness and accuracy. Stakeholders often have varying interpretations of what features are essential, and they may struggle to articulate detailed functions without ambiguity. This difficulty is compounded when requirements evolve or when stakeholders lack technical expertise, leading to incomplete or misunderstood functionalities (Sommerville, 2016). Moreover, abstract or complex systems demand precise specifications to prevent scope creep, requiring extensive documentation and validation.

Non-functional requirements pose their own set of challenges, primarily due to their often subjective nature. For example, usability or security requirements are harder to define concretely because they are influenced by user perceptions, organizational policies, and emerging standards. Capturing these requirements necessitates a deep understanding of user context and future-proofing, which can be difficult. Additionally, non-functional requirements tend to conflict with each other; for example, enhancing security may impede usability, necessitating trade-offs that require careful analysis (Kitchenham et al., 2010).

The discrepancy between stakeholders' expectations and technical implementation further complicates requirement elicitation. Stakeholders may focus on solutions rather than problems, leading to ambiguous or non-measurable requirements. Techniques such as interviews, questionnaires, and use case modeling are employed to mitigate these issues, but the challenge remains in translating stakeholder language into unambiguous, verifiable requirements (Lindgaard et al., 2006).

Comparison of Products Evolving from High-Fidelity and Low-Fidelity Prototypes

Prototyping plays a crucial role in software development by providing tangible representations of ideas, enabling stakeholders to visualize and interact with potential solutions. Low-fidelity prototypes, characterized by their simplicity and ease of modification, are primarily used early in development to gather feedback and refine concepts. Conversely, high-fidelity prototypes resemble the final product closely in design, functionality, and interaction, and can evolve into the complete system.

Products that evolve from high-fidelity prototypes are typically highly refined and aligned with user expectations. These prototypes are built using detailed design specifications, advanced interfaces, and sometimes partial code, making them suitable for user testing and stakeholder approval (Hartson & Hix, 1997). An example is a mobile banking application prototype that closely mimics the final app in interface design and workflow, enabling early testing of user flows and visual consistency before full development.

In contrast, products developed directly from low-fidelity prototypes are crafted through iterative learning and user feedback, gradually adding complexity and refinement over multiple iterations. The low-fidelity prototype serves as a foundation for designing the architecture, features, and user interactions. For instance, a website wireframe created using paper sketches or simple mockups, which is then systematically developed into a fully functional website, exemplifies this approach (Rudd et al., 1996). The product built from this process benefits from iterative validation, reducing unnecessary features and focusing on core functionality.

The main distinction lies in the level of detail and fidelity of the initial models. High-fidelity prototypes accelerate final product development by incorporating detailed design elements early on, reducing ambiguity and rework. However, they require significant upfront investment in time and resources (Bias & Mayhew, 1994). Conversely, low-fidelity prototypes promote flexibility, allowing for rapid changes and user-driven modifications, but may require more developmental iterations to reach the final system.

Conclusion

Effectively capturing both functional and non-functional requirements remains a complex task that demands careful elicitation, validation, and management. Challenges such as ambiguity, stakeholder conflict, and evolving standards necessitate rigorous techniques to ensure clarity and completeness. When it comes to prototyping, understanding the differences between low-fidelity and high-fidelity prototypes informs their optimal application in the development lifecycle. High-fidelity prototypes serve as near-final models that streamline transition to implementation, whereas low-fidelity prototypes encourage rapid iteration and stakeholder engagement. Recognizing these differences ensures that development teams can leverage prototyping strategies effectively to produce user-centered, high-quality software.

References

• Bias, R., & Mayhew, D. (1994). Cost-Justifying Usability. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Hartson, H. R., & Hix, D. (1997). Cognitive tiếng khảo sát về thiết kế giao diện người dùng. ACM Computing Surveys, 29(4), 373–410.
• Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S. L., & Fostery, N. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12), 1111-1121.
• Lindgaard, G., et al. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression!. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 115-126.
• User-centered design. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 33–41.
• Sommerville, I. (2016). Software Engineering (10th ed.). Pearson.