One benefit of research is that your design decisions (which may well
be right without research) are being informed. It also gives you data
you can talk to when speaking to Execs who just talk to their own
opinion, just as designers sometimes to talk to their own opinion as
well.
More
Like statistics, it's a useful form of proof to show others.
I am not convinced of its universal applicability, but it depends on
the project. In some cases, personas may be useful. In others, the
users follow similar paths at different speeds or with different
amounts of data, but otherwise,
jared... you certainly make a great point on roleply vs personas I
suppose I made my oversimplified statement assuming the designer has
actually met and observed at least a few possible users. I forgot that
even that element was in question in this thread.
I agree that distinction is
The bottom line for me in this entire thread: To those folks who
promote personas as a useful design tool, it seems quite clear to me
this industry has not done a good job of making clear what a persona
is and what some of the better methods are to research them.
Jared, to define that a
Robert said:
All I have to do is imagine a person to create a persona? And if it's a
real person, it's not a persona? What if I imagine a cartoon character?
What do you call that? If a tree falls in a forest and hits a mime, does
anyone care?
To continue beating a dead horse.
Maybe there is a
On Nov 27, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
You do need something to document the activity, but I don't see how
a persona is the best way to do this.
What would you recommend? Personas, in this case, could be a very
efficient artifact to document both the activities and
BTW, we typically use personas in tandem with our task analysis grid.
Personas
http://www.slideshare.net/toddwarfel/data-driven-design-research-personas
Task Analysis Grid
http://toddwarfel.com/?s=task+analysis+grid
On Nov 27, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
You do need something
On Nov 27, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
You do need something to document the activity, but I don't see how
a persona is the best way to do this.
Sigh. Once again, I'll try to be clear.
*Personas* don't document anything. Personas are memes created by a
team to help
Hi Robert,
If you are designing for yourself and by yourself, then you may not benefit
greatly from personae.
The primary benefit for building personae is in the research. If you were
designing a social networking site for say a unique culture in Africa (bear
with me) then I would think you
are trying to
design from the production line floor.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
Hoekman, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:11 AM
To: Jared M. Spool
Cc: ixd-discussion
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas
The upside-down ketchup bottle is hard to invent when you are trying to
design from the production line floor.
Depends on your creative abilities and how well you study the activity of
pouring ketchup, I suppose. And you're sorta making my case for me here. You
can be an expert on this subject
On Nov 28, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
I'm not sure how documenting Joe the Occasional French Fry Eater
would help.
(I know, I know, now all of you are going to say you wouldn't need
a persona
in this case.)
And you know this because you have a good sense of our
Jared Robert wrote:
I'll be pleased if I don't have to talk about personas for a while either.
:)
I'm with you.
-r-
Well, now I feel downright silly about the response I posted on the
website this morning (that hasn't been moderated yet).
Teaches me to start reading a thread almost 2
The upside-down pill bottle (Target's ClearRx), however, wasn't. Deborah
Adler had very clear personas in mind when creating her remarkable
game-changing design.
But this is also a case where you could have arrived at the solution without
a persona, because you can become a SME on it without
The funny thing is, if you've ever imagined what it might be like to
be your intended user trying to *use* the thing you're designing,
you've done persona-based design. Period. That's all it is. The
method is just the formalized cruft that's accrued to this very
basic, intuitive act of design.
On Nov 28, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Andrew Hinton wrote:
The funny thing is, if you've ever imagined what it might be like to
be your intended user trying to *use* the thing you're designing,
you've done persona-based design.
Again, in an attempt to not overload terms, I'd say that isn't
Jared said
It would be a part of persona-based design if the intended user were
using was a persona. If it's just someone you just made up in your head,
then its just role-playing. (Both are valid techniques, but have
different purposes.)
I agree with the first sentence but not the second
On Nov 28, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
Incidentally, though, the use of personas didn't change the fact
that this went untouched for so long, and a decision to use personas
would not have made it happen any sooner. It only addresses how the
designer arrived at the new
Incidentally, though, the use of personas didn't change the fact that
this went untouched for so long, and a decision to use personas would not
have made it happen any sooner. It only addresses how the designer arrived
at the new design once someone finally decided to pay attention to the
I think this is the part that ant-persona people miss. It's a tool that
helps get all the different stakeholders on the same page. And for that,
we've found them to be a very, very useful communication artifact.
She designed it for a school project. What stakeholders did she need to get
on
She designed it for a school project. What stakeholders did she need to
get on the same page?
Never mind - I just read the description of how she designed it. I see that
she actually dealt with all those people first-hand.
-r-
If you *made
up* someone in your head, you just created a persona. If you role-play
using someone you know, it is role-playing but you are not using a
persona. A persona being archetype, a creation and not a real person.
Wow. Let me get this straight.
All I have to do is imagine a person
On Nov 28, 2007, at 6:26 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
I think this is the part that ant-persona people miss. It's a tool
that helps get all the different stakeholders on the same page. And
for that, we've found them to be a very, very useful communication
artifact.
She designed it
On Nov 27, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jeff White wrote:
Also - unless there is a large design team which is separate from
research staff, personas might not provide any extra value to those
doing research + design. Chances are they'll acquire any knowledge
from ethnography that a persona might
Jared already gave a pretty in-depth and accurate response. So, I'll
simply add a short response based on some additional experience.
On Nov 27, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jeff White wrote:
The difference is that there are some situations in which personas
in general are not feasible or realistic,
I think this discussion would progress faster if we were to define what
level of details you need to have a personas. Does a name and one goal
constitute a persona? In my mind yes, a persona is a collection of info
I have about the user population. The level of detail and the amount of
-Original Message-
Once again, that just goes to show that we need more education on how
to create and properly use personas. Used properly, they are one of
our most useful tools. But like any other tool, used incorrectly, or
not at all, well, we all know what happens then. Bad data
Bullocks. Personas don't take that much time to develop once you have
the data. And since you're going to collect data anyway, or you should
be, then what's an extra day or two to develop some personsa?
You assumed here that they were, in fact, going to collect the data
anyway. But that's the
Yes, I'm expecting that the design decisions have some data to back
them up, even if it's a quick and dirty gorilla method.
On Nov 27, 2007, at 1:06 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
Bullocks. Personas don't take that much time to develop once you have
the data. And since you're going to
Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting here...
I think Robert may be focusing on good design done w/o the use of
personas, which I completely agree is possible and very probable.
But that doesn't mean that *no* user centered research was conducted -
it just means they didn't use personas. Which I
Yes, this is my point. That good design done w/o any type of research
is rare. To think that it happens simply by chance is IMHO
shortsighted and naive. Furthermore, why take the risk? Why wouldn't
you inform your design by some research?
Speaking for myself and Messagefirst, every time
Sooo... at the risk of grossly oversimplifying...
a designer can:
1 be the target user/audience/market
2 already know the target user/audience/market (hopefully from real and
successful experience)
3 research the target user/audience/market and hopefully find a tool (persona)
to document and
I would take this a step further. Every time I/we do research we find out
something important that we did not know, or something to contradict our
assumptions. We often tell clients that research is worthwhile even if it only
confirms their understanding of the user, but it rarely does only
good design is much more probable when some sort of user
centered research (especially when designing for an audience other
than yourself) is conducted.
I agree with the rest of what you said, but again, why *user* centered, as
opposed to activity-centered or something else?
-r-
At 12:54 PM -0700 11/27/07, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
good design is much more probable when some sort of user
centered research (especially when designing for an audience other
than yourself) is conducted.
I agree with the rest of what you said, but again, why *user* centered, as
Yes, this is my point. That good design done w/o any type of research is
rare.
I assume you're talking specifically about interaction design. Am I right?
To think that it happens simply by chance is IMHO shortsighted and naive.
Furthermore, why take the risk? Why wouldn't you inform your
Dude - you were sooo doing research. ;-)
On Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at 03:24PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's look at an example. I recently visited the WTC site and spent a couple
of of hours reflecting, taking pictures, etc. Since leaving there, I've had
quite a few
Or ACD. :)
As a profession, we need more choices. Rather, we need to *recognize*
the choices that are already out there whether they fit into a UCD
mold or not, and at least be willing to believe there is more than one
way to skin the proverbial cat.
-r-
Sent from my iPhone.
On Nov 27,
Sounds like you have something interesting in the works Robert. Here's
where I stand, and maybe it is semantics we're tripping over...
You can come up with an idea or product concept from anywhere - no UCD
needed for sure. But UCD is an excellent idea when it comes time to
designing the nuts and
Dude - you were sooo doing research. ;-)
Like, totally :-)
I feel like we do have choices Robert. There's UCD, under that
umbrella are tons of tools, techniques etc at your disposal - no one
is saying there is one way to conduct UCD. There's also usage centered
design. There are lots of other
I still think this discussion is missing a super-critical point.
Personas are not just about design. Personas are about focus. It's
great if a company has time and money to do full, data-driven
personas. That takes time and planning and a lot of work (see
ginormous book I wrote with
On Nov 27, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Robert Hoekman, Jr. wrote:
I suppose you could argue that these conversations were research,
but they really weren't. They didn't lead me to figuring out how the
site should work, they just led to the idea.
And it is. Just because you didn't intend to go
I feel like we do have choices Robert. There's UCD, under that
umbrella are tons of tools, techniques etc at your disposal - no one
is saying there is one way to conduct UCD.
Lots of people on this list have said similar things, but then many continue
beating the persona stick to death as
I still don't buy there's anything to this activity-based design stuff.
Care to elaborate? You can't just spit out something like that and run off.
;) What is it that bothers you about it?
In the end, it's all about having information to make informed design
decision, no matter what stupid
No flames from me Tamara:
I think you have very eloquently explained the importance of how
implementing the persona process in a company that has not embraced a User
Centered design culture can help with the communication process between the
various departments and can reduce the us vs them
On Nov 27, 2007, at 6:04 PM, Tamara Adlin wrote:
Let the flames commence.
Nah, now we're just going in circles.
:)
Jared
Jared M. Spool
User Interface Engineering
510 Turnpike St., Suite 102, North Andover, MA 01845
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: +1 978 327 5561
http://uie.com Blog:
Every once in a while our list becomes possessed by the ghost of
Escher and we get caught in an infinite recursive loop.
will evans
user experience architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
617.281.1281
On Nov 27, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Jared M. Spool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 27, 2007, at 6:04 PM,
I did elaborate when we talked about it here: http://ixda.org/
discuss.php?post=13134 (scroll down to December 26 at 2:44pm). My
opinion hasn't changed in 11 months.
This (hybrid) quote from you is, I think, the heart of it:
An example would be the activity of ordering a blood test in a
Well, that kinda sucks they continue beating a certain flavor of UCD
to death. One key concept of UCD, to me, is there is never a magic
formula for doing it. Everything, as with any form of design, is a
matter of context - goals, resources, time, etc. I've used personas
throughout 5% of my career
politicians cannot pull it down. -
Donald Gilbert Carpenter
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim
Drew
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 9:44 PM
To: ixd-discussion
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
On 19 Nov 2007, at 18:11, Chris Borokowski wrote:
This is what sticks in my mind, as well.
While I'm not about to abandon personas entirely, I've skipped instead
to an idealized user, which is an interpretation of the average
person under the following stressors:
[snip]
Often, many
This is a huge shift. A persona is a deep sample with very specific goals,
behaviors and therfore perspective. If you switch to utilizing an architype -
(they tend to be more of an agregate character similar to stereotypes) you are
looking at a shallow sample with a lot less specificity. The
I agree it's a huge shift, and can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Then again, I've seen personas run amok and make products that fit no
one, so I can't say anything is 100% safe if applied by people who are
foolish, have poor judgment, are evil or inexperienced.
What I like about it is that it
Yet, we've found many teams, like Robert, believe personas *are*
just a report format. Teams that believe this, in our research,
rarely succeed at designing great experiences for their users.
Quick clarification here on my position: the persona *artifact* is a report
format. The persona
On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Jeff White wrote:
I realize part of the perceived value of personas is the narrative.
I do think, as someone in this thread suggested, that formatting the
data in more of an outline format - headings, bullets, etc -
removing some fluff, would go a long way
On Nov 19, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Jeff White wrote:
Also, how relevant is the information? What design decision would you
make based on the following information from the persona?
He doesn't suffer fools, just as he won't put up with anything that
stands in the way of getting his job done.
I
I've looked at the example from Chopsticker 4-5 times (it was posted
in another previous thread as well) and I've never had the attention
span to read the whole thing.
I strongly believe that a persona *requires* narrative -- much of a
persona's power lies in its ability to create a sense of
This is what sticks in my mind, as well.
While I'm not about to abandon personas entirely, I've skipped instead
to an idealized user, which is an interpretation of the average
person under the following stressors:
1. Limited time
2. Background distraction
3. Partial knowledge
With the following
Good points, perhaps we could start another thread on what makes Personas
actually useful?
I agree that the artifact alone, especially if it is cute, has distractor
information.
One of the real values I think is that the different personas represent
ways
in which a user approaches a
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
In every description I've ever read of creating personas (yours,
Cooper's, Pruitt Adlin's, Gomoll Story's, and Mulder's are the
first to come to mind), they all go into great depth about the data
collection and synthesis methods
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Todd
Zaki Warfel
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Jeff White
Cc: ixd-discussion
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Jeff White wrote:
It disturbs me that some in our profession think
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
One could just as easily argue that Dreyfuss's 17-page example is
excessive. If he can't do it in 2 pages, then no one will ever pay
attention to him. But, they don't, because that's just crap too.
No kidding. 17 pages is excessive. Talk
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
I'm all for a persona process that works. I have yet to experience
that myself, but I'm not the enemy here. I'm just a messenger from
what I've seen. I'm all for you showing me the light, however.
So, why haven't you fixed it? Why
[Note, I've combined comments from Andrei, Robert, and Jeff into one
message so I don't fill up everyone's mailbox.]
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
First, personas *are* already successful. Many teams are using them
On Nov 17, 2007, at 7:04 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:13 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
One could just as easily argue that Dreyfuss's 17-page example is
excessive. If he can't do it in 2 pages, then no one will ever pay
attention to him. But, they don't, because that's
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Patton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Jared M. Spool' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Todd Zaki Warfel'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Jeff White' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'ixd-discussion'
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples
On Nov 17, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
With that criteria, why are you picking on personas? Practically
every modern design technique falls into this distinction,
including user-centered design and agile methods. There are no
'industry-standard practices', short of
On Nov 17, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
And sure, if they went through the
research, that's fine, but it's simply impractical to ask companies
to send 20 person design teams on a research project. 2-5 is often
the most anyone can afford, even large companies like Microsoft
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
Then change it.
On Nov 16, 2007, at 8:46 PM, Robert Barlow-Busch wrote:
I think Andrei's entirely correct with this suggestion. The format of
personas is so... well, it's just so CUTE. Not surprisingly, a lot
of people
conference rooms.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert
Barlow-Busch
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 5:46 PM
To: ixd-discussion
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
I would suggest to those that make
I took it way differently. What I read was when personas are based on
the pre-conceived assumptions and biases a designer may have, then
that is bad.
So, when the personas are not built on objective research, they are
not correct and thus not helpful. I really don't know what the true
intent of
, November 16, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Jeff White
Cc: ixd-discussion
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Jeff White wrote:
It disturbs me that some in our profession think a persona can be
non-data driven. It's bad for our profession
I took it that way too, Jim.
Kind of like asking a pizza guru when pizza wouldn't be the ideal meal
to consume, and she goes when it's not made right. :-)
Jeff
On Nov 16, 2007 12:43 AM, Jim Drew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 13, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Alan Cooper wrote:
The place where
Jared - I only quickly scanned the article and comments, but it didn't
seem like the pushback was aimed at your statement that non-data
driven personas either 1)just suck and shouldn't be used or 2)are
something else entirely.
It seemed the pushback was targeted to the name you gave the sucky
On Nov 16, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Bryan Minihan wrote:
4: Instead of fighting bad persona work, I would suggest proving
to people (by unambiguous example) how personas yield a better
product. My greatest challenge as UCD director (yes, those who
can't do, direct) at my last company was
On Nov 16, 2007, at 9:22 AM, Todd Zaki Warfel wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Bryan Minihan wrote:
4: Instead of fighting bad persona work, I would suggest proving
to people (by unambiguous example) how personas yield a better
product. My greatest challenge as UCD director (yes, those
In every description I've ever read of creating personas (yours,
Cooper's, Pruitt Adlin's, Gomoll Story's, and Mulder's are the
first to come to mind), they all go into great depth about the data
collection and synthesis methods. I've never seen a persona creation
description that just
Couldn't agree more with this. Which is exactly why we do data-driven
personas.
Data Driven Design Research Personas
On Nov 16, 2007, at 10:01 AM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
(Personally, I believe when personas are not built on objective
research, they aren't personas -- they are something else.
I think there is a danger though that many people/groups are using personas
that are poorly constructed because they seem so easy in concept but are not
as easy to create/use well. The scenario Alan provides is just one of many
misuses.
This relates to a comment someone made earlier, that
On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Jeff White wrote:
It disturbs me that some in our profession think a persona can be
non-data driven. It's bad for our profession if we have people out
there calling their guesswork personas. As you say, personas have been
well defined by many in our field
I think what Alan was trying to say is this:
Personas are a tool for helping a team understand better who their
key users are and what those users need from the design.
If the team already understands this, then they don't need personas.
One context where a team may already understand this is
On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
You can't look at the deliverables and say, That one's good, but
that one's bad, anymore than you look at a designer and tell, just
by looks, if he has talent or not.
The only way to see a well-crafted persona would be to have the
Second, design deliverables are written for a specific audience: the
design team. It's never expected that they have value to others
outside the team.
I may be misreading your definition of design team, but I have to make
a point here. Personas (good ones based on primary research) *can* and
On Nov 16, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andrei Herasimchuk wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
You can't look at the deliverables and say, That one's good, but
that one's bad, anymore than you look at a designer and tell, just
by looks, if he has talent or not.
The only way to
On Nov 16, 2007, at 2:13 PM, Jared M. Spool wrote:
First, personas *are* already successful. Many teams are using them
and getting great value out of them. They are not in general use,
but they are being applied in many applications and seeing much
success, by many different metrics.
''
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
I assume I'm going to get flak for this, but here goes...
From my own perspective, here are my thoughts on why personas aren't more
abundant, why they aren't done well, and how they can be done more often:
1: If someone can invent
On Nov 16, 2007, at 3:04 PM, Robert Barlow-Busch wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2nu3tr
In the end, personas are just a report format. Or if you hate
reports (and
who doesn't?), think of them as a communications channel.
I think you might find a lot of designers hate reports. At least the
I would suggest to those that make persona deliverables that the
format, the template and the deliverable is a core reason why
personas are having trouble being adopted properly at more places.
I think Andrei's entirely correct with this suggestion. The format of
personas is so... well, it's
Sounds ok, but how is this able to cater for unexpected behaviors? I
am uncomfortable with including predicted user behaviors or the way
the persona in question is going to approach the task, because I feel
that it borders on relying on gut feeling which in my opinion
should not be the way to
Jason Fried of 37signals wrote this biased but worthwhile critique of
personas not too long ago:
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/690-ask-37signals-personas
On Nov 13, 2007, at 12:19 PM, oliver green wrote:
So, can you give me examples where using personas would not
be advisable/helpful?
I'm not sure how informed Jason Fried is of what a persona really is.
I can't find a URL, but I swear he said once that he used to use them and
eventually turned against them.
They're [personas are] artificial, abstract, and fictitious.
Which is incorrect. Personas are based on a real
@lists.interactiondesigners.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
I'm not sure how informed Jason Fried is of what a persona really is.
I can't find a URL, but I swear he said once that he used to use them
@lists.interactiondesigners.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
I'm not sure how informed Jason Fried is of what a persona really is.
I can't find a URL, but I swear he said once that he used to use them
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 13:24:12 Joshua Kaufman wrote:
Jason Fried of 37signals wrote this biased but worthwhile critique of
personas not too long ago:
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/690-ask-37signals-personas
I'm not sure how informed Jason Fried is of what a persona really is. He
OK - this discussion has gotten more than a bit silly.
If you are the target group that you are developing for (as in 37signals), of
course you do not need personas. You essentially ARE the persona... only
better! This should not be taken as advice unless you (the design and
development team)
PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Robert Hoekman, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Celeste 'seele' Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: discuss@lists.interactiondesigners.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
I'm
On 14/11/07 8:10 PM, kswang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, personas will not be able to define how the users are going
to carry out the task or how they are going to approach their goals.
I've distilled observed user behaviour into written personas along these
lines .. one persona might be
Hi everyone,
I am trying to understand the finer nuances of using personas. The
various articles/book chapters that I have read talk about instances
where using personas would be useful. But I feel that to really
understand a methodology, one should be familiar with the weaknesses
as well. So,
be
bad.
Thanx,
Alan Cooper
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
oliver green
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 12:19 PM
To: discuss@lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: [IxDA Discuss] Examples where personas are *not* useful
Hi everyone,
I
99 matches
Mail list logo
