Design Sprint Certification Exam – Quiz 03

During the “Understand” phase, it is crucial that the team has a clear and shared understanding of the problem they are trying to solve. If conflicting interpretations arise, revisiting stakeholder interviews is the best course of action. This allows the team to realign with the original problem statement and ensure that everyone is on the same page. Clarifying the problem before moving forward is essential because it sets the foundation for the rest of the sprint. If the problem is misunderstood or misaligned, the solutions developed in later phases will likely miss the mark.

Voting or moving forward without resolving the conflict may result in wasted effort and ineffective solutions. The “Diverge” phase, which involves generating multiple ideas, should only begin once the team is aligned on a clear problem statement. Prototyping different interpretations without a unified understanding can lead to confusion and dilute the focus of the sprint.

In a situation where the team has generated numerous ideas and there is disagreement on which ones to prioritize, conducting a silent dot voting session is an effective way to reach a consensus. Dot voting allows each team member to independently vote on the ideas they believe have the most potential, helping to avoid groupthink and allowing for a more democratic process. This method provides a visual representation of the team’s collective preferences and helps identify the ideas that resonate most with the group. It is a widely used technique in Design Sprints for narrowing down options after the “Diverge” phase.

Allowing each team member to develop their favorite idea or deferring to the Product Owner can undermine the collaborative spirit of the sprint and may not reflect the team’s overall priorities. Group discussions can be helpful, but they can also become time-consuming and may not lead to a clear decision if strong opinions are involved. Silent dot voting offers a structured, efficient, and inclusive way to prioritize ideas based on the team’s collective input.

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, which can significantly impact decision-making during the “Decide” phase of a Design Sprint. One common cognitive bias that teams may encounter is the familiarity bias, where team members tend to favor ideas that are more familiar or similar to past experiences, rather than exploring innovative or unconventional solutions. This can limit the creativity and effectiveness of the sprint, as the team might overlook more innovative ideas that could potentially lead to better outcomes.

While cognitive biases are an inherent part of human decision-making, being aware of them allows the team to take steps to mitigate their impact, such as by encouraging open-mindedness and using structured decision-making techniques. Contrary to improving accuracy, cognitive biases often reduce the objectivity of decisions, leading to choices that are more influenced by personal preferences, emotions, or past experiences rather than a rational assessment of the ideas’ potential.

The “Test” phase of a Design Sprint is all about learning from real user interactions with the prototype. Even if the prototype is not yielding the expected feedback, the team should focus on observing users closely without interference. This approach allows the team to understand how users interact with the prototype naturally and to identify any usability issues or misunderstandings. Taking detailed notes on user behavior, comments, and emotions can provide valuable insights that might not be evident from direct questioning alone. The goal is to gather unbiased feedback that can inform the next iteration of the design.

Asking leading questions or immediately moving to a new prototype can result in missing out on critical feedback that could improve the overall design. The purpose of the “Test” phase is not to confirm that the prototype works as intended, but to learn as much as possible from user interactions. Concluding that the sprint was unsuccessful based on unexpected feedback would be premature; instead, the team should use the feedback to iterate and refine the design.

Stakeholder alignment is crucial for the success of a Design Sprint. When a key stakeholder expresses strong disagreement with the chosen direction, it is important to address their concerns promptly to ensure that the sprint remains aligned with organizational goals. Pausing the sprint to schedule a meeting with the stakeholder allows for a discussion of their concerns and for clarifying any misunderstandings. This approach ensures that the stakeholder feels heard and that their input is considered, which is vital for maintaining buy-in and support for the final solution.

Proceeding without addressing the stakeholder’s concerns can lead to misalignment and resistance later in the process. While it might seem efficient to incorporate feedback in the next iteration, doing so without prior discussion risks creating a solution that lacks stakeholder support. Revisiting the “Decide” phase might be necessary if the stakeholder’s concerns are significant, but it is more productive to first attempt to align through discussion before making any major changes to the sprint’s direction.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon where the desire for harmony or conformity within a group leads to an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. During the “Diverge” phase of a Design Sprint, where idea generation is critical, individual brainstorming is an effective technique to avoid groupthink. By allowing team members to generate ideas independently before sharing them with the group, each participant has the opportunity to think creatively without being influenced by others’ opinions. This approach helps to produce a wider range of ideas and encourages more diverse thinking.

While building on each other’s ideas and collaborative brainstorming are important for team synergy, they can also lead to groupthink if not managed carefully. Setting a strict time limit may increase pressure but does not directly address the issue of groupthink. Voting on ideas immediately after brainstorming can prematurely narrow down options before exploring all possibilities, which can also contribute to groupthink by limiting the diversity of ideas considered.

The “Understand” phase of a Design Sprint is foundational to the entire process. Its primary goal is to ensure that all team members have a clear and shared understanding of the problem at hand. Without this alignment, the sprint risks addressing the wrong issue or approaching the problem from conflicting perspectives. By ensuring that the team is united in their understanding, the sprint can proceed with a focused direction, increasing the likelihood of developing a relevant and effective solution.

While gathering data is important, the key is how the data is interpreted and understood by the team. A detailed project timeline is valuable but secondary to aligning on the problem definition. Identifying solutions early in the process can be counterproductive, as it may lead the team to overlook other potential avenues for solving the problem. The focus should remain on understanding the problem thoroughly before moving to ideation.

In the context of a Design Sprint, the goal of the “Prototype” phase is to create a tangible representation of the solution that can be tested quickly with users. Given the time constraints, Jake should prioritize creating a low-fidelity prototype. This approach allows the team to test the core concept and gather valuable user feedback without spending excessive time on details that might not impact the usability or viability of the solution. The feedback gathered from a low-fidelity prototype can still provide critical insights that guide further development.

While high-fidelity prototypes can yield more realistic feedback, they are not always necessary during a sprint. The essence of a Design Sprint is to learn quickly, iterate, and refine the solution based on user feedback. Splitting the team or extending the sprint may not be feasible and could undermine the sprint’s efficiency. Therefore, focusing on a low-fidelity prototype aligns with the sprint’s objectives of rapid prototyping and testing.

The “Empathize” phase in Design Thinking is all about understanding the users’ needs, challenges, and experiences. This phase is critical because it lays the foundation for developing solutions that are genuinely user-centric. By focusing on user-centricity, the team ensures that the solutions they create during the Design Sprint are not only innovative but also relevant and valuable to the users. Empathy helps the team to step into the users’ shoes, see the world from their perspective, and identify pain points that may not be immediately obvious.

Ideation, prototyping, and feedback are all essential components of Design Thinking, but user-centricity is the principle that directly aligns with the “Empathize” phase. Without a deep understanding of the users’ needs, the solutions generated in later phases may not effectively address the core problem. Therefore, user-centricity is critical to the success of the entire Design Sprint process, as it ensures that the team is solving the right problem for the right audience.

During the “Decide” phase of a Design Sprint, Dot Voting is an effective technique for prioritizing ideas and making decisions. This method allows team members to vote on their preferred ideas using dot stickers, which helps to quickly identify which ideas have the most support among the team. Dot Voting is valuable because it provides a visual and democratic way to evaluate ideas based on collective input, ensuring that the most promising solutions are selected for further development.

Brainstorming is more suited for generating a wide range of ideas rather than prioritizing them. Affinity Diagramming is useful for organizing and clustering ideas, but it does not directly facilitate decision-making. Storyboarding helps in visualizing user interactions but is less effective for prioritizing which ideas to pursue. Therefore, Dot Voting is the most appropriate technique for making informed decisions on which solutions to advance in the sprint.

In a Design Sprint, addressing conflicting feedback effectively is crucial to developing a solution that meets the needs of diverse users. Sarah should create two separate prototypes to test both the simplified user interface and the advanced options. This approach allows the team to gather targeted feedback on each option, helping to understand which solution resonates better with users. By testing both approaches, Sarah can make a data-driven decision based on user responses, ensuring that the final design aligns with user preferences and requirements.

Designing only the advanced feature or simplifying the user interface without further testing might lead to suboptimal solutions that do not address all user needs. Ignoring the conflicting feedback is also not advisable, as it risks missing out on important insights that could impact the app’s success. Therefore, creating two prototypes and gathering further feedback is the most effective strategy for resolving conflicts and ensuring that the sprint produces a well-informed solution.

The primary goal of the “Test” phase in a Design Sprint is to gather user feedback on the prototype and validate the assumptions made during earlier phases. This phase is crucial for understanding how well the prototype addresses user needs and whether it meets their expectations. By conducting user tests, the team can obtain direct insights into the effectiveness of the design, identify any issues, and validate or adjust their assumptions based on real user interactions.

Finalizing the design and preparing it for implementation happens after the “Test” phase, once the feedback has been analyzed and incorporated. Brainstorming additional features and documenting the sprint process are important but not the focus of the “Test” phase. The core objective is to test the prototype with users to validate its viability and gather actionable feedback for further refinement.

Anchoring Bias occurs when individuals rely too heavily on the first piece of information (the “anchor”) they encounter when making decisions. In the context of a Design Sprint’s “Decide” phase, this bias can lead the team to favor initial ideas or solutions, even if better options emerge later in the process. To mitigate Anchoring Bias, the team can use structured decision-making techniques, such as Dot Voting or silent brainstorming, where all ideas are considered equally before being discussed or voted on. Additionally, ensuring that the team revisits all options before making a final decision can help reduce the influence of the initial anchor.

While Confirmation Bias involves favoring information that supports pre-existing beliefs, and Availability Bias leads to over-reliance on easily recalled information, neither is as directly relevant to the “Decide” phase as Anchoring Bias. Groupthink, on the other hand, occurs when the desire for harmony in a group results in irrational decision-making, but it is a broader issue that can affect all phases of a Design Sprint, not just the “Decide” phase.

In the “Prototype” phase of a Design Sprint, the primary goal is to quickly create a tangible representation of the solution to test with users. A low-fidelity prototype allows the team to test multiple ideas rapidly, gather feedback, and iterate without spending too much time and resources. This approach is particularly beneficial in the fast-paced environment of a Design Sprint, where the emphasis is on learning and refining ideas rather than perfecting them from the start. By using a low-fidelity prototype, Emily’s team can identify what works and what doesn’t, allowing them to make informed decisions before moving on to a more refined version.

A high-fidelity prototype, while impressive, may take too long to build and could limit the team’s ability to explore different ideas. Creating both prototypes could be resource-intensive and counterproductive within the time constraints of a Design Sprint. Relying solely on the team’s preferences without considering the objectives of the sprint may lead to decisions that don’t align with the sprint’s goals. Therefore, choosing a low-fidelity prototype is the most effective way to advance the sprint while maximizing learning and feedback.

The diversity of the user group selected for testing is critical to ensuring that the feedback collected during the “Test” phase is representative of the broader target audience. A diverse group brings various perspectives, experiences, and needs, which helps uncover a wider range of issues and opportunities within the prototype. By including users from different backgrounds, demographics, and usage contexts, the team can gather more comprehensive insights, leading to a more robust and user-centered final product. This approach helps the team identify potential challenges or areas for improvement that might not be evident if the testing group were more homogenous.

While the aesthetic appeal of the prototype, the speed of feedback, and the number of features are important factors, they are secondary to the quality and relevance of the feedback obtained. Focusing too much on aesthetics or speed may result in overlooking critical user insights, and including too many features could overwhelm testers and dilute the focus of the session. Therefore, prioritizing the diversity of the user group ensures that the testing phase is as effective and informative as possible.

The 5 Whys analysis is a powerful technique for identifying the root causes of user problems by repeatedly asking the question “Why?” to peel away the layers of symptoms and surface the underlying issue. This method is particularly effective in the “Understand” phase of a Design Sprint because it allows the team to move beyond the obvious symptoms of a problem and uncover the deeper, often less apparent, causes. By thoroughly understanding the root cause, the team can develop more targeted and effective solutions during the later phases of the sprint.

Customer journey mapping, while valuable for visualizing the user’s experience and identifying pain points, focuses more on the sequence of interactions rather than the underlying causes of problems. Competitive analysis is useful for understanding the market landscape but does not directly address user issues. Brainstorming is a creative technique for generating ideas but is less structured and may not lead to the identification of root causes without additional analytical steps. Therefore, the 5 Whys analysis stands out as the most effective tool for uncovering the true nature of user problems in the “Understand” phase.

Using a decision matrix is an effective approach to objectively evaluate and prioritize the generated ideas in the “Ideate” phase. By evaluating each idea against specific criteria that align with the sprint goals, the team can systematically assess which ideas are most likely to succeed and have the greatest impact. This method helps to ensure that decisions are made based on the potential of the ideas to address the problem and achieve the desired outcomes, rather than on personal preferences or initial excitement. A decision matrix encourages a balanced evaluation by considering multiple factors such as feasibility, impact, and alignment with user needs.

Conducting a group vote can be a quick way to narrow down options, but it may lead to bias or overlook less popular yet potentially stronger ideas. Focusing on the easiest ideas to implement could result in missing out on more innovative solutions that require more effort but offer greater rewards. Selecting ideas based solely on initial support may reinforce groupthink and fail to challenge the team to consider all possibilities critically. Thus, a decision matrix provides a structured and strategic approach to selecting the best ideas for prototyping.

The quality of user feedback received is the most relevant metric for evaluating the success of the “Test” phase in a Design Sprint. High-quality feedback is actionable, specific, and provides deep insights into how users interact with the prototype, what works, and what doesn’t. This feedback allows the team to understand user needs better, identify any gaps in the prototype, and make informed decisions on necessary iterations. The success of the “Test” phase hinges on obtaining feedback that drives meaningful improvements to the design, ensuring that the final product aligns closely with user expectations and solves the identified problems effectively.

While the number of users who participate in testing is important, it does not guarantee valuable insights if the feedback is superficial or lacks depth. The speed of prototype iteration is crucial for maintaining momentum in the sprint, but it should not come at the expense of thorough testing and quality feedback. Similarly, testing a large number of features may dilute the focus and make it difficult to extract clear insights, whereas concentrating on a few key features with detailed feedback is more beneficial. Therefore, prioritizing the quality of user feedback ensures that the “Test” phase contributes effectively to the overall success of the Design Sprint.

Brainstorming is a widely recognized and effective technique for rapidly generating a large quantity of diverse ideas during the “Ideate” phase of a Design Sprint. It encourages participants to think creatively and freely, allowing for a wide range of ideas to be proposed without immediate judgment or criticism. This open and inclusive environment fosters innovation, enabling the team to explore various possibilities and approaches to solving the problem at hand. The goal of brainstorming is to generate as many ideas as possible, regardless of feasibility, to ensure that all potential solutions are considered before narrowing down the options.

While mind mapping, storyboarding, and the SCAMPER method are valuable tools for organizing thoughts and refining ideas, brainstorming is particularly effective at the initial stage of idea generation. Mind mapping is more suited for visually organizing and connecting ideas after they have been generated. Storyboarding helps in visualizing a sequence of events or user experiences, which is typically done after ideas have been refined. The SCAMPER method, which stands for Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse, is a structured technique for modifying and improving existing ideas. Therefore, brainstorming remains the best technique for generating a wide array of ideas quickly and effectively.

Iterating on the prototype based on user feedback is the most appropriate course of action in this scenario. The purpose of the “Test” phase in a Design Sprint is to identify issues and areas of confusion in the prototype so that they can be addressed before the final product is developed. By refining the prototype in response to the feedback, the team can improve the user interface, simplify the checkout process, and ensure that the feature is intuitive and user-friendly. Iteration is a critical aspect of the Design Sprint process, allowing the team to make adjustments and test new versions until the solution effectively meets user needs.

Proceeding with the launch despite user confusion would likely result in a poor user experience and could lead to negative feedback and low adoption rates. Abandoning the feature altogether would be premature, as the issue may be resolved through iteration and further testing. Adding more instructional content might help guide users, but it does not address the underlying issue of a confusing interface. The goal should be to create a seamless experience that requires minimal instruction, and iteration is the key to achieving that. Therefore, iterating on the prototype based on user feedback is the best approach to refining the feature and ensuring its success.

Conducting a risk-benefit analysis is an effective way to prioritize ideas during the “Decide” phase of a Design Sprint. This approach involves evaluating each idea based on its potential benefits and associated risks, allowing the team to make informed decisions about which ideas to pursue. By carefully considering factors such as feasibility, potential impact, and alignment with the project goals, a risk-benefit analysis helps the team identify the ideas that offer the most value while minimizing potential downsides. This method ensures that the chosen ideas are not only innovative but also practical and aligned with the overall objectives of the sprint.

Voting on the most popular ideas can lead to bias and may overlook less obvious but valuable solutions. Focusing solely on the most innovative ideas may result in neglecting practical considerations such as feasibility and user needs. Prioritizing ideas based solely on ease of implementation might limit the potential impact of the final solution and result in a less ambitious outcome. Therefore, a risk-benefit analysis provides a balanced approach to decision-making, helping the team select the ideas that are most likely to succeed and deliver meaningful results.

User interviews are a primary tool used during the “Empathize” phase of a Design Sprint to gather deep insights into user needs, behaviors, and motivations. By directly engaging with users, teams can uncover the underlying issues and pain points that may not be immediately apparent through other methods. These interviews allow for an in-depth understanding of how users interact with products or services, their challenges, and what they truly value. This information is crucial for informing the subsequent stages of the Design Sprint, ensuring that solutions are grounded in real user needs.

While competitive analysis, A/B testing, and SWOT analysis are valuable tools in other contexts, they do not serve the same purpose as user interviews during the “Empathize” phase. Competitive analysis focuses on understanding market trends and competitors, which is more relevant to strategic planning rather than user empathy. A/B testing is a method for comparing two versions of a product or feature to determine which performs better, typically used later in the process. SWOT analysis evaluates strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, which is useful for strategic decision-making but not for understanding user needs in depth. Therefore, user interviews are the most appropriate tool for the “Empathize” phase.

Simplifying the payment process is essential in reducing friction and minimizing cart abandonment during the checkout process. When users encounter a payment process that is overly complex, time-consuming, or confusing, they are more likely to abandon their carts out of frustration. By streamlining the steps required to complete a purchase, eliminating unnecessary fields, and offering a clear and intuitive user interface, the team can create a smoother and more efficient checkout experience. This approach directly addresses the core issue observed during user testing and helps ensure that more users successfully complete their purchases.

While increasing the number of payment options, improving visual design, and adding promotional offers may have a positive impact on user experience, these strategies do not directly address the underlying problem of a cumbersome payment process. Offering more payment options can be beneficial, but it will not solve the issue if the process itself remains complex. Enhancing the visual design may improve the aesthetics but will not necessarily reduce friction. Promotional offers might encourage users to complete their purchase, but they do not address the root cause of abandonment. Therefore, simplifying the payment process is the most effective solution.

The primary goal of the “Prototype” phase in a Design Sprint is to develop a quick and simple version of the solution that can be tested with users. This prototype is not meant to be a fully functional product but rather a basic representation of the key features and user interactions. The purpose of the prototype is to validate ideas and gather feedback early in the design process, allowing the team to identify potential issues and make adjustments before committing to full-scale development. By focusing on speed and simplicity, the team can iterate rapidly and explore multiple concepts within the limited timeframe of the sprint.

Building a fully functional product during the “Prototype” phase would require significantly more time and resources, which contradicts the sprint’s objective of quick iteration. Creating a detailed business plan is important for long-term success but is not the focus of this phase, which is centered on user testing and validation. Conducting market research is also valuable but is typically done during the earlier stages of the design process, such as the “Understand” or “Empathize” phases. Therefore, the most appropriate goal during the “Prototype” phase is to develop a quick and simple version of the solution for testing.

One-on-one user interviews are the most effective method for obtaining qualitative feedback during the “Test” phase of a Design Sprint. This phase is designed to evaluate how real users interact with the prototype and to gather in-depth insights into their experiences, emotions, and behaviors. By conducting individual interviews, the team can ask open-ended questions, observe users as they interact with the prototype, and explore specific areas of interest in detail. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of user pain points, preferences, and overall satisfaction, which is essential for refining the solution before further development.

While surveys, focus groups, and A/B testing are valuable tools in other contexts, they do not provide the same level of qualitative insight as one-on-one interviews. Surveys tend to collect quantitative data and may lack the depth needed to uncover nuanced user experiences. Focus groups can generate valuable discussions but may be influenced by group dynamics, leading to less candid feedback. A/B testing is useful for comparing different versions of a product, but it typically focuses on measuring user behavior rather than understanding the underlying reasons for that behavior. Therefore, one-on-one user interviews are the most effective method for gathering qualitative feedback during the “Test” phase.

Adding a daily reminder notification is likely to improve user engagement by prompting users to log their water intake consistently throughout the day. Notifications serve as a gentle nudge, reminding users of their intention to track their water consumption, especially in a busy or distracted environment. This feature directly addresses the issue of forgetfulness observed during testing and helps establish a habit, making it easier for users to achieve their hydration goals. The reminder can be customized to fit the user’s schedule, increasing its relevance and effectiveness in maintaining user engagement over time.

Redesigning the app’s user interface, while potentially beneficial for improving overall user experience, may not directly address the specific problem of forgetfulness. Offering a rewards system could incentivize consistent logging, but it might not be as immediately effective as a reminder in combating forgetfulness. Including social sharing features could enhance user interaction with the app, but this feature is less likely to solve the issue of consistent logging. Therefore, the most effective design modification is to add a daily reminder notification.

Brainstorming is the most suitable technique for generating a large number of ideas quickly during a Design Sprint. This creative process encourages participants to think freely and propose as many ideas as possible without judgment or immediate evaluation. The goal is to unlock a wide range of possibilities, including unconventional or innovative solutions, which can then be refined and developed further. Brainstorming sessions are typically fast-paced and collaborative, making them ideal for the time constraints of a Design Sprint. By leveraging the diverse perspectives and expertise of the team, brainstorming can lead to a rich pool of ideas that fuel the subsequent stages of the sprint.

Storyboarding, user journey mapping, and competitive benchmarking are valuable tools in the design process, but they serve different purposes. Storyboarding focuses on visualizing the sequence of events in a user’s experience, which is more about refining ideas than generating them. User journey mapping helps in understanding the user’s experience over time but is more analytical and less conducive to rapid idea generation. Competitive benchmarking involves analyzing competitors’ products or services, which is useful for strategic positioning but does not typically generate a high volume of new ideas. Therefore, brainstorming is the most effective technique for quickly generating ideas during a Design Sprint.

The “How Might We” (HMW) method is a powerful tool used in Design Sprints to transform broad challenges into actionable problem statements. The purpose of HMW is to frame problems as opportunities, encouraging a mindset that is both open to possibilities and focused on practical solutions. By asking “How might we…?” the team is prompted to consider different angles for tackling a problem, which can lead to more innovative and creative approaches. This method is typically used after gathering insights from user research or observations, allowing the team to focus on the most pressing issues that need to be addressed.

While the HMW method does pave the way for generating solutions, its primary role is in problem identification rather than direct solution creation. Once problems are clearly defined, the team can move on to brainstorming and other ideation techniques to develop solutions. The method also indirectly supports stakeholder alignment by ensuring that everyone on the team has a shared understanding of the problems to be solved. However, HMW itself is specifically aimed at identifying and framing problems rather than prioritizing user needs or facilitating stakeholder alignment.

In a Design Sprint, the “Sketch” phase is all about generating and refining ideas. Once the team has multiple solutions on the table, dot voting is an effective method to quickly prioritize which ideas should move forward. Each team member places dots or stickers on the sketches they believe have the most potential, allowing the team to visually identify the most promising ideas. This approach ensures that every team member’s opinion is considered, promoting a democratic decision-making process that helps avoid bias or dominance by any single voice. The idea with the most votes is typically selected for further development and testing, ensuring that the team focuses on the solution that has the most support.

While conducting user interviews can provide valuable insights, it is not as quick or efficient as dot voting for deciding between competing ideas during a sprint. Developing both solutions in parallel may be resource-intensive and could dilute the team’s efforts, potentially leading to less effective outcomes. Revisiting the problem statements could be beneficial, but it may not be necessary if the team is confident that the ideas align with the identified problems. Therefore, dot voting is the most appropriate method for the team to proceed with at this stage.

The primary advantage of using a low-fidelity prototype in the “Prototype” phase of a Design Sprint is that it enables quick iterations and testing of ideas. Low-fidelity prototypes are simple, often rough representations of the final product, created using basic materials or digital tools. Because they are relatively easy and fast to produce, teams can quickly test different concepts, gather user feedback, and make necessary adjustments without significant time or resource investment. This approach aligns with the rapid and iterative nature of Design Sprints, where the focus is on learning quickly from user interactions to refine the solution before moving on to more detailed development.

While low-fidelity prototypes may not provide the same level of detail as high-fidelity ones, this is not a disadvantage during the early stages of testing. The goal at this point is to validate core concepts and functionality, rather than to present a polished final product. Additionally, because low-fidelity prototypes are less detailed, users may feel more comfortable providing critical feedback, as they perceive the prototype as a work in progress. This can help minimize the risk of feedback bias, as users are more likely to focus on the functionality rather than the aesthetics of the design.