Usability Testing with a Paper Prototype - Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Define and Refine User Interfaces - page 150

Videotaping
I first started conducting usability tests when I joined User Interface Engineering in 1993. Back then, we
videotaped all usability tests—paper or otherwise—as a matter of course, and we gave our clients
copies of the tapes. But in recent years I have almost completely stopped videotaping usability tests
because most tapes of paper prototype tests simply aren't used.
Whenever I cross paths with a former client, I ask what they did with the tapes from the usability
study we conducted. Usually, the person looks slightly embarrassed and admits that the test
tapes were put on a shelf and have been gathering dust ever since. I estimate that at least 90%
of the usability test videotapes I've made have never been watched.
Reasons to Skip the Videotaping
Videotaping a paper prototype usability test is less useful than taping a computer-based test, for
several reasons:
The action is slowed down. On a computer, users may perform keyboard or mouse actions
faster than the eye can follow, but with a paper prototype the speed is limited by how fast the
human Computer can do things. The Computer can't miss the action because he or she controls it.
The interface changes frequently. Many paper prototypes are revised after each usability test,
and they can evolve quite rapidly. In a fast-moving development environment, a videotape that
shows problems from 2 weeks ago may no longer be relevant.
There is less need for analysis. Analysis of usability test data always has a point of diminishing
returns. With paper prototypes, this point comes sooner than with software, again because the
prototype tends to change rapidly—some statistics might be obsolete before they're even
calculated. A useful question to ask yourself is, "Will the time needed to review that tape provide
more value than something else I could be doing instead?" Perhaps the answer is yes if there's an
important but subtle issue you're still trying to piece together, but often the time would be better
spent revising the interface or conducting an additional test.
It's hard to read the prototype screens. With inexpensive video equipment, the picture may not
be good enough to read the prototype screens and sometimes screens with a lot of white space
can confuse a camera's automatic focus. Although better equipment might solve the problem, I'd
go that route only if it wasn't physically possible for observers to come to the test.
Reasons to Videotape
On the other hand, here are some reasons why you might decide to videotape your usability tests.
Not enough observers. As long as there are at least two or three good observers taking notes,
they should be able to capture many of the issues. But if your team is very small, the observers are
inexperienced, or you're worried that you might miss something important, a videotape can act as
your safety net.
Remote observers. Although I advocate having all the observers in the same room, this may not
always be desirable or practical. With observers in another room, a video camera is usually needed
to relay the action because the prototype may be difficult to see through a one-way mirror.
Because you're already dealing with a video camera, you might as well pop in a tape.
Need for a highlight tape. Highlight tapes can be valuable to communicate the problems you