I know that members on this list are dubious about using personas in
the design process.
Here's a nice, solid research paper by Frank Long at NCAD in Dublin
that shows how they can improve team dynamics:
> Real or imaginary: The effectiveness of using personas in the > product design process. > > As you know, the use of personas as a method for communicating user > requirements in collaborative design environments is well > established.
Hi, all. I was inspired to post this question by the very interesting
ACD/UCD discussion, during which the personas concept has frequently been
mentioned. I've always been a little uncertain of personas, but many people
seem to love them, and so I'm wondering if I'm missing or misunderstanding
Below are my three main problems with the concept. I'm hoping some of you
might be able to tell me whether (and how) I'm on- or off-base with them.
1) *Frankenstein.* As I understand it, the better persona practitioners will
base their constructions on real-world data.
I am running a persona workshop with our client partners to flesh out
some of the behavioral aspects. As part of a "fun" exercise, we would
like to have persona naming as part of the event. Normally, when I
pick names, I make up something based on my IM list, mashups of TV
characters from shows I watched recently, or something along those
Does anyone have a process in place (or ideas) for how our group might
choose names collaboratively?
Before testing: If you want a product with good UX, do you give the
programmers a list of functions or a list of scenarios?
Usually people write a functional spec for a software/website they want,
which they then give to the programmer. The programmer will create a
program/website with the functions you requested. The programmer comes back
and feels great about this product he created for you, with all the
functions you asked for, maybe even threw in a few extra.
You try the program and it has all the functions, but it is impractical.