Interviewing Kids

I recently had the opportunity to return to a place I hadn't been for quite some time--the principal's office. My last project included interviewing 11-17 year olds about their homework habits, and I needed a hall pass from the secretary. In preparing for the interviews, it occured to me that I hadn't spoken to many 'tweens since I was one myself. Would they call me Mister? Ask to trade Bakugan? And the high school kids--would they be too cool to talk to me, answering every question with nothing but a yes, no, or dismissive smirk?

As it turns out, interviewing school-aged children isn't too different from interviewing adults. But as I learned, there are a few do's and don'ts you might do well to keep in mind.

Have an adult introduce you to the child
Allow a parent, teacher, or guardian to make initial introductions. This establishes your credibility to the child and communicates the adult's consent for conducting the interview.

Treat kids like regular people (that is, like adults)
Kids can tell if you're being patronizing and will adjust their own behavior accordingly. Treat them as you would any interviewee, thanking them for their time and explaining what they should expect from the session.

Interact with them at eye level, but don't get too close
Minimize physical power dynamics by sitting in a chair or kneeling alongside kids when you conduct the interview. At the same time, be aware of their personal space and don't give them a chance to feel vulnerable or uncomfortable with your presence.

Be specific with your questions
Kids tend to be quite literal in adult conversations, so be direct with the questions you ask and the responses you give. Don't be surprised when you point to a toolbar and say "what do you think these do?" and the response is "save saves, print prints, open opens, and delete deletes."

Avoid technical and professional lingo
You've picked up a career's worth of acronyms and jargon that your interviewee will not be familiar with. Also, look for the words kids use to describe things, and use those both in your interviews and when designing for your young audience.

Don't ever take pictures or video without parental permission
There are many legal and ethical issues around photographing and videoing minors, and if you don't have a clear need for it, don't bother. If you do ask, be prepared to take no for an answer without any further discussion. Put parents/guardians at ease with things like "we only use these internally for reference" and "don't worry, this won't end up online or on TV." When appropriate, set up your video to capture the session without recording the child's face, for example by training the camera on the screen when discussing software.

Don't crack jokes or be sarcastic
Kids won't be prepared for casual joking, for as much as you work to set up a peer relationship they are still talking to an unknown adult. Jokes will often be misinterpreted as serious comments. As an example, I was running a feedback session with a powerpoint deck that ended with a blank screen. When one child clicked past the last prototype slide and into the blank screen, I remarked "OH! You broke it!" then spent the rest of the interview making him feel better that he hadn't just busted our computer.

Recognize when an interview isn't going well and finish it quickly
This happens with adults too, but sometimes you'll get a kid who just isn't able to converse with you. Spend a minute or so looking for an opening, and if you can't break through, let them out of their misery and end the interview quickly. Don't abort it or say it's not working, just ask a few easy, obvious questions, thank them for their participation, and move on.

What else?
I'd love to hear more about other people's experiences interviewing children and involving them in user feedback sessions. What advice do you have?

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

Four seconds of silence

Here’s a quick tip for you as you conduct your goal-directed interviews with users and potential users: Leave a four-second pause after your interviewee pauses their response, allowing them to add more information or additional detail.

This is hard to do. In ordinary conversation, people will often step in and fill these silences. Especially with a stranger, we don’t want to leave the conversation “hanging,” preferring instead to offer up some response or reflection on what the other has said.

But an interview is not a cocktail conversation. The interviewer is trying to get as complete a picture as he or she can of the user’s thoughts. To help do this, we want to give them that room to think about what they’ve just said and append as necessary.

Continue reading...

Doing research right at kajeet

There comes a time in any parent’s life when she has the face the inevitable: Her child’s first cell phone. That time has come at last for me, and I confess I have been dreading it. What if she buys 50 ring tones? What if she calls China? What if she sends a prank photo to a friend and ends up going to jail and having to register as a sex offender for life? (That’s right, I’m a parent: I can go from “my kid might overspend my money” to “my kid might go to jail” in ten seconds flat.)

It was with utter delight, therefore, that I stumbled across kajeet, a cell phone service for ‘tweens and their parents. What sets kajeet apart is not their phones (they don’t make any), or their network (they’re essentially a Sprint reseller), but the service. With kajeet, parents can fine-tune what their kids can and can’t do, and who pays for what. You can set up separate wallets for the parents and the kid, such that the parents can pay for phone calls to Mom and Dad, but the kid has to pay for calls to friends or goodies like ringtones and wallpaper. You can set up times of day for certain activities, like only emergency phone calls during school hours. You can even track the location of your kid’s phone using its built-in GPS and online tracking tools.

When I discovered kajeet, I was in parental heaven. The service was so exquisitely tuned to my needs that I started to get professionally curious. What was the process that had led to this product?

The kajeet origin story goes something like this: Three dads saw a need, and created a company. Now, that’s a great start, but there had to be more to that story. They must have done their homework. So to learn more I spoke with kajeet’s SVP of Corporate and Business Development, Carol Politi.

Continue reading...

User Research Friday

I ventured out of the office last Friday, to join Bolt Peters and friends for User Research Friday at Mighty in San Francisco. Billed as “Emergent User Research Methods. And Drinks” URF08 was attended by about 150 professionals and students interested in the topic of user research. During his opening remarks, Nate Bolt talked about the benefits of user research, and remarked that “good ideas don’t just come from the guys in the black turtlenecks.” Nate’s comment got me thinking, what are the strengths and frustrations of the user research community, and how can interaction designers get the most benefit from user research techniques?

The userati: Dan Saffer, Indi Young, Cyd Harrell and Nate Bolt

Continue reading...

Predictably Irrational

Behavioral economist, Dan Ariely’s delightful first book, Predictably Irrational, heaps yet one more shovel of dirt onto the fresh but deep grave of traditional, rationalist assumptions about human behavior. The book is a simple, personal, easy-to-read account of Ariely’s research conducted over the past 15 or so years. This research was conducted at his various host universities; all of them paragons of ivy-covered scientific rigor, including MIT, Stanford, The University of Virginia, and The University of California at Berkeley.

The clear and inevitable conclusion of his dozens of research papers summarized in this book is simple: humans don’t make rational decisions. What’s more, the irrationality of their choices isn’t random, but can be predicted and measured. While many of the experiments deal with choices regarding cash, several of them cleverly divorce themselves from money to clearly demonstrate that the goofy human behavior is human-related, not cash-related.

He identifies several predictable forces that act upon humans during decision making, causing them to make irrational choices. These include the distorting effect of similar, but slightly inferior, products offered for sale; the distorting effect of simply thinking about numbers; the distorting effect of items offered for free; the distorting effect of sexual arousal; social norms, ownership, procrastination, self-control, clinging to options, expectations, and being observed.

Continue reading...

Learning from How Doctors Think

When I picked up Jerome’s Groopman’s How Doctors Think, I imagined that it would give me a useful window into the mind of the busy clinician. On medical projects we often find it a bit challenging to get enough research time with physicians. (Aside from maybe lawyers and CEO’s, there are no better exemplars of the “time is money” mentality—American doctors, in particular.)

Dave, Doug and Noah learning how surgeons think.

While I appreciated the informal history of medical education, interesting anecdotes of diagnostic challenges and satisfying dose of medical atmosphere, I learned just as much about design and design research as I did about medicine. (I'm not surprised to discover that I'm not the first to make this connection. In her blog, Elegant Hack, Christina Wodke discusses how she thinks design education should be thought of more like medical education, with a focus on gaining experience over several years in industry, rather than just technical skill in a design program. She'll get no argument out of me there.)

The part of the book that I found most striking is Groopman's discussion of what he calls "classic cognitive errors" in diagnosing and treating medical conditions. I have made and seen each of these errors in understanding people and devising products and services to meet their needs. While explicit knowledge of these categories of flawed thinking isn't a guarantee against them, I do think that by naming them and affirming their reality (often by reference to the work of psychologists), this book can help us remember the kind of mistakes that top-notch professionals make when they're tired, stressed, egotistical, or just lazy.

Continue reading...

The parable of The Homer

Even after you’ve sold them on personas, even after you’ve explained that you want to design for a specific persona first, even after you warned them about the perils of the “elastic user,” you can find yourself hearing things like, “Well, I know this guy who would do it this way...”

To help clients who won't be put off by pop-culture references, I reference the parable of The Homer.

For those who aren’t familiar with the Simpsons episode “Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?” (Season 2, Episode 15), it plays out like this: Homer meets his long lost brother Herb, who happens to head an automobile company. Believing Homer to be the perfect “everyman,” Herb instructs his designers to make exactly the car that Homer wants.

Continue reading...

I heart my tablet PC

Figuring out the right way to capture information during user and stakeholder interviews can be tricky. I like to capture as much information as possible because I’m never sure what will turn out to be important later on. Audio or video might seem to be ideal; however, recording makes subjects nervous, lessening the value of the interview. Besides, going back through the audio or video is extremely time consuming and therefore usually cost-prohibitive.

I touch-type very well, and so I have the uncanny ability to type an almost verbatim transcript of an interview while simultaneously keeping eye contact and participating in the conversation. This can come in handy during some kinds of meetings, such as internal meetings or during a kickoff with a client, when everyone involved understands and is invested in the process and I, as the naïve consultant, can be forgiven for wanting to capture every word.

This approach is much less successful in the context of a user interview, however. Not only is it kind of creepy, but the presence of a computer acts as a barrier to communication. It’s noisy, and the screen acts as an actual physical barrier between interviewer and interview subject. Furthermore, a computer is a complex, interactive device, so looking at the screen can be distracting for both interviewer and interviewee. Since we like to err on the side of a quality interview over perfect documentation, for a long time this has meant using a paper notebook for user interviews.

Enter the tablet PC.

Continue reading...

Who says white space doesn't count? Fight for pixel rights!

Recently, Ben Gomes at Google shared some experimental testing they had been performing related to their search results page. The first experiment showed two pages each with a different presentation.

I'm ashamed to admit that I couldn't tell the difference between the pages until I read the entire article. Can you tell?

Continue reading...

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.

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

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.

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

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.

What do you think? Join the conversation in Comments

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...