I don't like the characterisation of personas as fictitious, since that conveys a perjorative sense of "being made up". Personas, like all audience segmentation and user modelling techniques, are an articulation of a collection of shared attributes. The lines between segments can be fuzzy, and the narrative provided to capture the flavour or essence of the segment can feel like story-telling, but the attributes (or dimensions) and the values of those attributes are very real.
I don't believe that this is the same as mistaking the map for the landscape; nor is it mistaking a map for a sign-post. If I describe the Australian desert landscape using stories and memories from a hundred different locations, does it matter that no single place shares all of those qualities, or is it more important that you'd now be able to design a product much better suited to that landscape? Steve 2009/5/30 Robert Hoekman Jr <[email protected]> > 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." > ________________________________________________________________ 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
