Statements like
"What you're talking about are poorly executed personas. Sure, too
many persona projects produce sucky results, but if we look beyond
that at the benefits produced by the few well-executed projects, can
we agree that, when done well, this tool has merit?" (Jared)
and
"Their using the hammer wrong. Don't blame the hammer. ;)" (Patrick)
and
"You know, if we had standardized processes for a lot of this, it
wouldn't really be an issue. You don't know you are doing personas
wrong unless there are guidelines for doing them. The same goes for
most interaction design." (also Patrick)
seem to suggest a rather strong view on methods and techniques. That
there is a right way to apply them, that they can be prescribed,
standardized, guidelined in a way that influences action. Perhaps even
that they carry actionable knowledge in themselves.
And the original paper that started this thread seems to assume that
there are connections between the use of personas and the quality of
the design outcomes.
--------
In my experience, any design method can be applied well or poorly,
leading to good as well as bad results. No amount of standardization
and guideline writing seems to be capable of changing that. A method
does not guarantee a certain outcome; it does not substitute for
design experience and skill. My conclusion is that for practical
purposes, methods do not seem to carry knowledge.
I tend to think of a method as a vehicle for coordination and
communication. People with different skill sets, representing
different stakeholders in a design process, can agree on using a
method which provides them with a platform in terms of activities and
deliverables.
Relevant research questions in the field of design methodology would
then not be "Does method X lead to design result Y?" but rather "How
is method X appropriated in design practice? More specifically, how
are concepts from method X used in project communication? How is
method X used as a means to distribute stakeholder involvement and
power?" And so on.
These are explorative, qualitative research questions (where notions
like "null hypothesis" lack meaning). Case studies using participant-
observation methods would be the most typical research approach, or
action research if there is a goal on behalf of the researcher to
influence practice rather than merely studying it.
Haven't seen many studies like that in interaction design,
unfortunately.
Jonas Löwgren
________________________________________________________________
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
