> > I suppose the question, then, is how important that (obvious but > misleading) > clarification is to the overall discussion. A model of a person is not a > person. A model of a group is not a group. A map is not the territory. > Point > taken, but I can still use a (good) map to help get me to Albuquerque. >
Oh, definitely. I think the main issue is that designers dispute that they're fictitious, when they are, in fact, fictitious. Why bother arguing that red is blue? Instead of arguing that they're real, designers should try embracing the idea that personas are the "maps" in your analogy. "Maps can help you get to Albuquerque without actually being road signs. Personas can help you design good stuff without actually being living, breathing people. They are based on real people and are designed to reflect and represent real people, much in the same way that maps reflect the route to Albuquerque. As such, they (personas and maps) are a great way to make sure we all stay on the same path." -r- ________________________________________________________________ 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
