What we use is real people, not personas. We jot notes on each person. Collect and cross reference their needs, and wants.
If there is a question that needs answering all we have to do is ask the person, on the other hand Personas can't talk. We can come up with a hypothesis and test against real people. Everybody in the firm is responsible. I think this method is both faster, richer, and leads to greater empathy. We very much follow the discipline of ethnography, to the point of really participating with our target users, going out with them, reading their blog and twitter feed. We also mainly use pc's over mac's as that is what our user use. James http://blog.feralabs.com 2009/3/9 Megan Grocki <[email protected]> > A colleague recently mentioned to me that she has sensed that clients > are starting to question the value of personas. > > What do you think, has an inherent gap been revealed in the > usefulness of personas as we know them? Has anyone else gotten this > sense, and if so, can personas be redeemed? > > Also, When is the last time you actually saw a project team-member > outside of IxD/UX go back and refer to persona documentation during > the later stages of a product or site development process? > > ________________________________________________________________ > 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 > ________________________________________________________________ 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
