Breadcrumb
Level 2 navigation
Getting personas right is essential in developing successful user interfaces. Although to us, personas are not particularly exotic they have recently caused a stir around the UsabilityOne office.
We avoid the traps of developing a product for the ‘typical/average’ user by conducting research catered towards our clients’ needs – ensuring a better understanding of their target audience and shifting the focus to realistic user experiences.
Personas need to be based on evidence, crafted ideally through qualitative and quantitative research methodologies. However, many personas we see in the market have been created with little to no actual user input.
After a little research, we were struck by just how many different perspectives and ideologies were behind the persona development process. So why are there so many different theories for creating personas in the UX and user-centred design world? And how do these compare to UsabilityOne’s own methods for persona development?
The answer behind the multitude of persona theories essentially comes down to the fact there really are no universal guidelines or methodologies behind the creation of personas. This means over the years, people have been left to formulate their own methodologies, resulting in a huge variety of opinions and debates on how personas should be created.
Research or Fictional?
A simple search for ‘user experience personas’ provides a multitude of opinions on what personas are, and how they should be developed. While some say personas are solely a fictitious representation of potential users, others describe them as manifestations of actual user research – as a way to bring the data to life.
From our perspective and experience, the most valid personas are based on actual data collected from a variety of research activities and sources – activities such as, but not limited to, surveys, interviews, web analytics, ethnographic and previous research. Utilising these tools, our personas communicate insights gained from user research and are personalised towards the target audience they are representing.
Sadly, this view is not shared by all usability and design professionals.
In some cases, we’ve found evidence where personas have been created without any user analysis. These personas based on assumptions about what the ‘average’ user is considered to be and want.
This is dangerous ground.
Arguments that state, “It’s not really practical for the students to research and create personas within the project timeframe,” (Frank Long, frontend.com) cause concern about the up and coming UX professionals about to enter the workforce.
How many is too many?
Some UX and design professionals advocate using a set number of personas – some with strict limits of three, some seven.
Our approach is a little more intuitive and differs project to project. While generally we recommend between three to eight personas, we try to capture the major user group of a product and have no strict limit on the minimum or maximum number. This ensures they reflect the client’s target audiences’ characteristics and, are true representations of the typical user.
How about the detail?
As you may have guessed by now, the amount of detail required to flesh out a persona is still a contested issue in UX and design. The question often posed, how much ‘personality’ should a persona have?
Some experts believe if personas are based on research or real users, then personal details should be omitted unless they reflect the user group represented by the persona. They feel irrelevant personal details can decrease the credibility of the persona and also make them more tedious to explain.
On the flip side, others believe personal information fleshes out the persona, making it more interesting. Some even suggest naming personas alliteratively by the thing that differentiates them from others, e.g. “Mona Minivan”. I hear you cringe, however the author stands by their belief this is a useful naming practice. The debate goes on with contention over the use of traditionally detailed personas or skeleton ones to describe typical use patterns, and in what type of projects are each appropriate?
Our approach is to stick as close to the available research as possible, adding additional detail and personality ONLY when it helps to qualify the data. Adding a brand name may help to qualify a person’s mindset (Mac vs. PC users) if it uses a commonly held stereotype – these details however should be used sparingly.
Conclusion
The most important thing to remember is personas are not research tools or stand alone products. They should be viewed as vessels to contain findings from your research and provide a simple way to communicate these findings quickly and easily.