Are Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) media worth to be used or do we need to maintain the traditional paper-based ones? Several studies exist, but address heterogeneous functions and criteria, and are not comparable. This contribution introduces an exploratory study toward a Unified Paradigm of evaluation (UP). UP aims to ease the setup of comparable design studies to evaluate if CSCWD are worth to be used in respect of actual supports. The most adapted paradigm to provide a valuable answer prescribes ethnographic qualitative descriptive studies between a traditional paper-based and a CSCWD media. A scenario centered on a common function is presented (isofunctional comparison). The criterion assessed is effectiveness, expressed as the combination of efficacy and usefulness. Efficacy is measurable through objective factors. Usefulness is measurable through subjective factors. In order to confront studies involving different people, we suggest that individual characteristics should be properly considered.