Mike, I think you make a mistake in assuming that creating the persona is an extra step in the research process that could be eliminated - i.e. the persona itself has no value, it is the research behind it that's really useful.
I recently went through a persona project which included going through volumes of qualitative and quantitative research. It was extremely valuable, but also very time consuming. There is no way each person on my team would have time to go through and digest all that research. Even if they did, none of us would be able to retain all that information for very long, which means that every time we wanted to use that research to help our decision-making, we would have to go back and dig through the research to find the relevant information. Needless to say, this would not be very efficient or very likely. A persona is a model that represents all that research in a form that is both succinct and easy to remember. The purpose of the artifact is to help facilitate communication and decision-making. That's what makes it hugely valuable as far as I'm concerned. Eva Kaniasty http://www.linkedin.com/in/kaniasty On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:00 AM, Mike Stiso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, classification and grouping methods have been around for a > while. If personas make use of the same methods, does persona > creation mainly involve adding another step to the process: > instantiating the different classifications into individual > characters? If so, the primary benefit of doing would seem to be the > achievement of a possible means of communication with others > (clients, developers, etc.). > > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
