Feature: Using Personas to turn Square Pegs into Round Users

Traditionally software design has been a 'Square Peg, Round Hole' problem. The needs of the user have been a large square peg, people have wanted to express themselves in ways that are similar to other ways of human expression – ways generally open to interpretation, full of grey areas and short on blacks and whites. The capabilities of the computer have been a smaller round hole, resources were constrained and capabilities were limited and fragile. Computers and the software that ran on them were things only their mothers or, in most cases, fathers could love. Everyone else wearily tolerated the idiosyncrasies so that they could get their jobs done.

Over the past ten years the capability of the computer has reached a point where the constraints on resources are less. In many ways the constraints are no longer a concern. It has now become possible to have the square peg sit comfortably in the round hole. Unfortunately the vast majority of current programmers and software designers are still steeped in the techniques of handling the older 'Square Peg, Round Hole' problem.

Traditionally, when programmers truly recognise the depth of resource they now have available, they tend to use these resources to engineer for the computer and not for the user. This is a well trodden engineering path and is, on many levels, a sensible decision.

Unfortunately this approach ignores one vital dynamic - computers are generally more robust than the affections and attention spans of users. Once the loving feeling is gone for a person it is almost impossible for a piece of software to get it back. In today’s market one person not feeling ‘the love’ is one less customer.

A traditional and commonly used approach to software design has been to develop a list of tasks. These are the tasks the software will be responsible for enabling and are seen as the functions of the software. The model dictates that these functions will be performed by the user of the software. It is at this point that the design process unravels and fails to represent the usage scenarios of a person who actually uses the software. The user in this context is an elastic user. This elastic user lacks detail, their goals are unknown and how they will perform the list of tasks in the context of their day to day life is ignored.

Technically, the user is considered elastic because, conceptually, they become infinitely malleable. The elastic user is a playdough person that is more often than not mashed into the round hole by the programmer. The software might perform all of the tasks it was required to perform, but more often than not, the same software demands that the user tie themselves in knots to get their job done. Understandably, many people have been left unsatisfied when their software was finally delivered.

PERSONAS
Of late a more user-centred approach has started to emerge. The person or people who will actually use the software replace the computer at the centre of the problem space. The needs of those people are established. The context of those people is defined. This data is used to shape the interaction between the people and the computer. The human element ceases to be the abstract and elastic user, and becomes a concrete and real person. The models of these people are called personas.

Personas are archetypes based on common characteristics and goals of real people. In this case the people are those who are likely to actually use the software. This approach dictates that tasks the software will enable are shaped by the goals of persona, and not by the characteristics of the computer. For the vast amount of software being written today, this approach turns out to be pragmatic and efficient because the vast majority of goals do not stretch beyond the resources of a modern computer. These personas effectively set the scene for the rest of the software design process.

While personas provide a powerful design tool, the requisite focus on people inherently contributes to increasing customer uptake of software and, ideally, a positive experience. A designer of software is less likely to be satisfied with a design that focuses on the needs of the computer over the needs of the people because the computer is no longer dominating the problem space. Any process that includes the needs of a customer in the design stage will be impacted by those needs. This impact by association is an inherent characteristic of any human to human interaction that involves at least a modicum of empathy – design is a process that relies on empathy to be successful.

CLIENT BENEFITS
Customer satisfaction manifests itself in both the client’s (software owner) and the customer’s (user) perception of the software. For the client, a focus on real people in the software design process has the following benefits:

Reduced Risk
People have an uncanny ability to use software in the least expected manner. In the worst case, software can fail dramatically when people are left out of the equation (see recent VNU article Biggest eLearning Disaster in History). Being able to sense these problems before they occur provides breathing space to implement steps to mitigate any risks.

Personas Set the Scene for Strategic Decision Making
Being able to model, even roughly, the core groups of users allows product managers to better plan future enhancements. The personas can act as a reality check for new ideas. Matching a new idea to a rough picture of the end user is easier than trying to match an idea against a non-descript placeholder.

Increased Information About the Development Project
Personas allow the development team to confidently design the information, navigation and visuals for a piece of software based on, not only the business goals, but the goals of the customers. This confidence allows project progression to be tracked with a higher level of granularity.

CUSTOMER/USER BENEFITS
For the customer or user the benefits are:

Using the Software Feels Intuitive
Tasks/options are offered in a way that meets their needs. The software is more likely to respond in a manner they expect. Matching the expectations of people and limiting unpleasant surprises reduces the time it will take for people to become confident with the software.

The Information is Appropriate
The content and visuals are pitched appropriately to the customer. Presenting users with appropriate data reduces the opportunity for confusion and mistakes. The fewer mistakes a person makes, the more positive an experience a person will have and the more likely they will be to take action.

When designing software, placing people at the center of the problem space ensures that their needs are taken into account. If their needs are taken into account then the effort people must expend to use the software is significantly reduced. The more effortless it is to use a product, the more likely people are to buy it, use it and ultimately, love it.

David ten Have, Chief Technology Officer
and Zef Fugaz, Interaction Designer
Provoke Solutions

Associated Link: View original article with pictures

All change at the top for System Concepts
Source: System Concepts Ltd, 3 July 2009
 
Leslie Fountain has been promoted to joint Managing Director of leading usability consultancy System Concepts.

Life in UCD immortalised in fiction: you couldn't make it up
Source: UN, 2 July 2009
 
Sarah Herman's fictitious book on life in a user-centred design company has hit the shelves and The Guardian's book pages...

Interfaces Magazine - Issue 79: The Education Issue
Source: Interaction Group, 1 July 2009
 
The latest issue of Interfaces is now available as a free download from the Interaction Website.

Two new Behavioural research Tools from Noldus
Source: UN, 30 June 2009
 
Tool updates make on-site behavioural data collection easier.

Cell Phones that Listen and Learn
Source: MIT Technology Review, 29 June 2009
 
New software tracks a user's behavior by monitoring everyday sounds.

Top Six Don’ts for Usability Testing
Source: FutureNow Inc., 27 June 2009
 
Six tips for creating quality usability tests to ensure useful feedback from testers.

Usability: ‘Lovely software. But I can’t work it’
Source: FT.com, 26 June 2009
 
In a recent survey by Global Graphics, 77 per cent of office workers estimate they lose up to one hour a week because business software is difficult to use.

And what do you do?
Source: Dexo Design, 25 June 2009
 
How do you describe your job role? Here are the results of a recent 'Preferred UX/UI Title' Poll.

Most Doctors cite Usability as critical to Electronic Health Record Adoption
Source: TMCNet, 24 June 2009
 
It's all about 'meaningful use'.

Glossy monitors look good but can hurt
Source: QUT, 23 June 2009
 
A new advisory cites research which suggests high gloss monitors make users sit awkwardly.