Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [agile-usability] Who is using multiple personae for one job role?

Expand Messages
  • Jared M. Spool
    ... I don t believe that s true in most cases. The uniformity always exists at some level ( we re all made of meat - http:// www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
    Message 1 of 41 , Dec 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Desilets, Alain wrote:

      > I agree that this comparison is not fair, because I am comparing two
      > nurses working in the same unit, whereas I am comparing two arbitrary
      > users of the photo manager. But that's the kind of the point. With
      > corporate software, there is an existing structure that groups
      > people by
      > function, education, and those introduce a minimal amount of
      > uniformity
      > (again, I'm not saying that individual differences don't exist
      > within a
      > same work unit... Just saying that there is a bit more uniformity
      > there).

      I don't believe that's true in most cases. The "uniformity" always
      exists at some level ("we're all made of meat" - http://
      www.terrybisson.com/meat.html ), but when you get into the
      particulars that will inevitably affect design, you rarely see
      uniformity across a role.

      Two nurses in the same unit could have substantially different needs
      from the CBC Blood Order page. One nurse, new to the unit, primarily
      spanish speaking, with tremendous familiarity with computer
      technology, but no previous experience with other parts of this
      particular system, could have very different design requirements than
      another nurse, familiar with the unit's practices and the existing
      system, primarily english speaking, and timid with anything but basic
      mouse functions. One role, two personas.

      Look closely at anything and uniformity disappears. ( http://
      www.despair.com/individuality.html )

      > For consumer products, you have to discover these groupings the
      > hard way. All the pre-established categories like Age, geographical
      > region, language, revenue, etc... are not likely to be useful by
      > themselves for predicting the needs and behaviours of the user
      > w.r.t. to
      > the system.

      Having worked in "consumer products" (which I still think you've
      misnamed) for a long time, I can tell you that demographic
      categories, such as age, geographical region, language, and revenue,
      are rarely useful in determining design requirements. (How do wealthy
      people use a photo editing tool different than poverty-level folks?)

      What we need to look for are factors which determine differences in
      behavior, which our design will then need to compensate for.

      I have the advantage that I switch frequently between the
      environments you claim are distinct. In those travels, I see few
      differences in how you approach design. At least, when there are
      differences in approaches to design, they don't divide on the lines
      you've described.

      Jared
    • Josh Seiden
      ... I do find that I use personas less often in the enterprise and more often in the consumer world, but I would attribute this to the relative
      Message 41 of 41 , Dec 1, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > > With corporate software, there is an existing
        > > structure that groups people by function,
        > > education, and those introduce a minimal amount
        > > of uniformity (again, I'm not saying that
        > > individual differences don't exist within
        > > a same work unit... Just saying that there
        > > is a bit more uniformity there).

        > Look closely at anything and uniformity disappears.
        > ( http://
        > www.despair.com/individuality.html )


        I do find that I use personas less often in the
        enterprise and more often in the consumer world, but I
        would attribute this to the relative "horizontal-ness"
        of the system under consideration, rather than the
        "enterprise-ness" of system.

        When you have a very vertical application in the
        enterprise context, roles can go a long way and are
        often a good enough model to use--especially when
        combined with feedback from actual users.

        But when the system is more horizontal--a phone system
        perhaps--personas become more useful because the role
        "phone user" doesn't get you very far.

        I agree with Jared that the closer you look, the less
        uniformity you have. Thus "horizontal-ness" is
        something of an artificial distinction. If are
        motivated to look at any vertically-defined role
        closely enough, if you spend enough money and time,
        you can make a vertical role as horizontal as you
        would like.

        So what determines "horizontal-ness?" I would argue
        that (in terms of deciding whether you use personas as
        a design tool) you consider both the intrinsic
        differences of behavior and motivation, but also the
        extrinsic factors: namely the relative value of
        investigating those differences on any given project,
        and the relative motivation of the client to pay for
        that value.

        JS
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.