Does prototype fidelity limit or increase usability testing?

I came across an interesting exploration of prototype fidelity by Jared Spool. I found this article very relevant to this week’s group work and discussion as each designer was at a different level of fidelity. I intentionally kept mine in Balsamiq, until the tail end, not sharing an InVision link, until the next to last post. I wanted to work out my navigation and receive and incorporate all of my feedback from the smaller groups and the larger class before moving into my most ‘interactive’ phase.

Mainly to prevent the demoralizing endless changes and tweaks that go along with redesign and finalization. But I wonder, did my intentional holding back into nascent stages of the software versus others who had almost complete and designed prototypes affect the reactions and assessments?

As far as straight interactions, NO. But as far as impressions and perceptions, YES. I didn’t start with paper prototypes as suggested. But according to the article: “the research is nuanced with studies generally showing paper and low-fidelity prototypes offering similar findings to full-fidelity prototypes and actual products.” I think it is safe to say that, any usability issues or faulty interaction design, is perceptible no matter the fidelity, low, medium or high.

As a production and visual designer I need ward off the pixel pushing and penchant to get carried away by artistry, alignment or other granular things of note, that I am accustomed to automatically addressing when I work. That second nature kicking in, reflexively needs to be curbed, in order to focus on the real task at hand which is functionality and best design of architecture. Consider all of the needed screens and (micro-)interactions is the key here. Not the look and feel. Best to not fall into our own traps, because at the end of the day, that doesn’t improve usability at all.