Full disclosure: This information has been processed

When we create a persona or a model organization, we're deliberately creating an archetype — a person or company that does not map to any one "real" person or company out there in the world. In creating personas, we need to be up-front with ourselves and our clients about the choices and assumptions we made along the way. We also need to be clear about what questions we asked and what we didn't. When we don't have the data, we need to acknowledge this and rectify it if necessary.

This point may seem like a methodological nuance, but it relates to ethical considerations that in other realms, as I recently discovered.

My design partner Chris Noessel and I just completed three weeks of research travel around the world. Neither of us had been to many of the countries, and we both photographed our adventures obsessively. One morning, he asked me to compare a photo he took to one that I took: Why did they look so different? We were using almost identical cameras and taking photos often of the same views.

Chris's photo.

My photo.

Why does mine look different? Because I adjust the photographs post-capture, slightly adjusting the contrast, lightness, and so on. For me, the unprocessed photos rarely convey my experience of the event or location, and the post-processing is intended to re-create my memory of the experience. I take photographs to share that experience, not to share the exact pixels the camera captured.

Chris admitted that it made my photos "look better," but that I "took liberties" to adjust, and once I started, where would I stop? How much change was too much change? How different could it be from his untouched version and still be the Great Wall of China?

Of course, this is part of a much larger conversation. Photographs appear to be very faithful representations of reality, so one may argue that viewers of photography bring a different set of expectations to them than they do to other visual art. Viewers expect photos to be more "real," more true to life, and therefore post-facto monkeying could be seen as deceiving. On the other hand, who is to say what "real" is, really?

Essayist and photo critic Susan Sontag addresses this argument in the introduction to her book, On Photography.

In deciding how a picture should look, in preferring one exposure to another, photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects. Although there is a sense in which the camera does indeed capture reality, not just interpret it, photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings and drawings are.

Even before taking the shot every photographer has made choices which will affect the captured image — camera and lens, film v. digital, SLR v. point-and-point shoot — and each has an effect on the contrast, color, and depth of field, aspect ratio, and so on. We can continue to split hairs, too; for instance, we accept that the journalist which uses a telephoto lens is "telling the truth" even though it grossly manipulates scale between foreground and background. With so much noise in the system, it seems arbitrary to assign "reality" to the raw output of the camera, doesn't it?

The National Press Photographers Association defines a couple of broad categories in the altering of photographs.

There are technical changes that deal only with the aspects of photography that make the photo more readable, such as a little dodging and burning, global color correction and contrast control. These are all part of the grammar of photography, just as there is a grammar associated with words (sentence structure, capital letters, paragraphs) that make it possible to read a story, so there is a grammar of photography that allows us to read a photograph. These changes (like their darkroom counterparts) are neither ethical nor unethical — they are merely technical ... [However], once the shutter has been tripped and the moment has been captured on film, in the context of news, we no longer have the right to change the content of the photo in any way. Any change to a news photo — any violation of that moment — is a lie." [The emphasis is mine].

The NPPA distinguishes between the technical aspects of making photos "more readable" and "changing the content," and I think that this is an interesting analog to the world of creating design targets (i.e., personas, organizations, environments). In our process, you could look at the transition from research to personas is the process of making the research "readable."

Of course, creating personas from research is a lot different than manipulating contrast and lightness in a photo editing app, but the principles are the same: Altering the content is a lie; each archetype that we create should faithfully reflect the gathered information, and each should bring out the priorities, needs and experience imperatives that affect the design. You can monkey with research just like you monkey with photos. When done well, slight adjustments to the color and contrast of the research more effectively reveals the truth. When done badly, they can lie and deceive.

Translation services in interviews

My team recently completed a set of non-English interviews in Beijing, Moscow, Munich, Paris, Seoul, and Tokyo. To facilitate these meetings, our client arranged translators. Having one was indispensible, but it cost time; and more time than we initially thought.

Continue reading...

Does your persona eat twinkies?

I recently stumbled across an article about personas written by Andrea Wiggins late last year in Boxes and Arrows. Wiggins does a nice job talking about how personas can help the design and development process, and some approaches for creating a good persona set. But what really gave me pause was the title: “Building a Data-Backed Persona.” Data-backed? Wait a minute…is there any other kind?

Continue reading...

"Wandering" can be productive during user interviews

Recently, a client who was observing us perform stakeholder interviews made a casual off-hand remark at the end of the day that the interviews had "wandered around a bit." We had explained how our interviews are less survey-driven, and more ethnographic in style, but it's often hard for the uninitiated to see the immediate value of an ethnographic type approach to interviewing, especially when it results in circuitous answers. We were particularly happy with the wandering of our interviews, which had produced visceral clarity which could never have been delivered with an overly structured interview. For example, hearing that the back-end systems are "dog shit" provides an additional layer of information than simply hearing that they're "dated" or "inadequate."

Tommy Stinson, Strategic Director at Cheskin, another Bay Area innovation engine recently blogged: "The goal of the discussion isn't to just get the participant's 'take' on the topic (at least it's not limited to that). The goal is to understand this person (or people) and their culture - the 'webs of significance.'"

We work from structured interview instruments, but as a journalist friend of mine is fond of saying, "the best quotes happen when the tape stops rolling." When we leave the scripted interview and allow someone to lead the interview themselves, often things which we couldn't predict or identify are revealed — and, in some cases, new topic areas can be added to the instrument as a result. Of course it's important to return to the script to hit all of the main questions we have, but it is equally useful and important to allow an interview subject to lead a little, to give them enough time and latitude to wander into areas which are not on the map.

Let the walls do the talking

Many of the Cooperistas were out traveling today, so I had the opportunity to snoop undisturbed. I thought it would be fun to find out a little more about what goes on in the office and to practice an aspect of our research approach while I was at it.

Observation of the environment in which people work is important to gain a well-rounded understanding of the people we design for. The objects and information that people surround themselves with, the character of their workspaces, and the way in which people interact with each other in those spaces all provide important clues about needs, priorities, preferences, and goals. When we talk in someone's personal workspace, we often intuitively pick up on facets that would not come up in conversation.

I snapped some photos of a few curiosities, and wrote down my initial thoughts about what these artifacts say about their owners. I also recorded the questions I would have asked of them if they were around to answer.

I discovered that there are a variety of computer mice around here. At first glance, it looks like people have chosen their mouse setup based on form, control type, and the feel that they prefer.

Questions:
What do you use your computer for? Did you specifically choose this mouse? Why or why not? What other digital products or peripherals do you own? Tell me about your favorite one, and why you like it. Any that you don’t like? Why?

Continue reading...

Seeing patterns in research findings

We’re always on the lookout for engaging ways to communicate the patterns we uncover in our research. What factors cluster into significant groups? What are relevant attributes and relationships? What trends do we see?

Shan Carter and Amanda Cox at the New York Times recently produced a fantastic interactive chart highlighting the voting patterns along several demographic factors in the Democratic primaries. (You can read more about this graphic from Shan Carter here.)

I love the idea of starting with this approach and overlaying additional factors to draw out relationships and relative importance. In the Times example, imagine the squares drawn in relative proportion to the number of delegates in play; color and saturation representing the percentage of Democratic votes in the 2004 presidential election. Combining multiple factors does complicate the visual, so care must be taken to preserve the clarity that makes it so effective.

At Cooper, we often do something similar, with behavioral variables of interview subjects plotted along major axes, combined with demographics like age, organization type and role, to paint a picture of the interrelated web that helps us make meaning of a diverse human population. We always try to walk through these visualizations with a story that ascribes meaning to the observations, but providing clients (and ourselves) with an opportunity to interact with the data in a well-curated way really emphasizes the relevant factors and helps everyone understand the patterns we use to drive decisions and take action.

Using research to end visual design debates

Imagine the following scenario: You're involved in a new product design project and are presenting several visual design options to the team. Everyone in the meeting is leaning toward one direction when in the back of the room an executive's hand shoots up. "I don't like orange," he says, and suddenly the meeting spirals out of control, degrading into a discussion about whether or not the square elements of the interface look too blocky, and "Could we use circles instead?"

If you've ever had to present visual design to a group, you probably have your own collection of similar horror stories. But why is it that a group of otherwise level-headed adults can't seem to have a productive meeting about visual design? The short answer is that in the absence of clear context about what they are evaluating, most people don't know how to objectively evaluate visual design, so they rely instead on subjective intuition.

Why is there subjectivity in this process? Visual communication, perhaps even more so than verbal communication, is a nuanced language. Rich gradations of tone and style exist in even the most straightforward of applications. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this is just where the trouble begins. A thousand words—especially when they're the wrong words—can do a lot of damage.

Continue reading...

Interview tips: The critical first five minutes

Goal-Directed Design necessarily involves first-hand research with real-world users. Whether these interviews last 30 minutes or two hours, the first few minutes of discussion are vital to establishing rapport with your participant.

Outside of celebrities and politicians, few people are practiced at giving interviews. And while participants are almost always willing to help as best as they can, there may be some unspoken questions troubling them before an interview begins. This article offers a list of common topics that proactively address these questions and make participants feel at ease.

Continue reading...

Design Research: Why You Need it

Ever notice how often a product that makes a huge splash at tradeshows fizzles in the marketplace? The story goes like this: Product is introduced at show to much fanfare. News media gives Product lots of press, and consumers everywhere express interest in Product's features and capabilities. Product hits store shelves…and stays there. Some early adopters purchase Product, but it never penetrates into mass consumer markets.

What went wrong? Market research clearly identified potential dollars in target markets just waiting to spend money on the new product. So why did it fail?

Continue reading...

Making Use of User Research

Designing or redesigning a product often feels like a risky proposition, especially in today's business climate. Those responsible for defining the product offering and marketing want reliable, measurable data to define success both incrementally and overall.

Hard data helps us make choices about where to spend resources, but placing a product under the microscope every step of the way can also introduce as many opportunities for error as it avoids. By focusing on how a product performs in the lab without broader knowledge of the user's environment and goals, measurement alone may be misleading. To get the most value and meaning out of user feedback it is important to choose the appropriate method for conducting and analyzing user research.

Continue reading...