1.) Describe your experience of creating personas from different users’ perspectives gathered in the interview data. Was there enough commonality between the 4 people interviewed to form a coherent persona? or did it make more sense to create a second different persona?

Our group chose the activity ‘catching public transport’. Albeit there were a lot of communalities within our group i.e. most would prefer train to bus, we could form a second persona with the distinct differences in the way that people use public transport and their attitude towards it. Our first had a definite utilitarian approach to public transport whereas the second would use it for pleasure and leisure too.

2.) Do you think your final persona(s) was successful in generating empathy with users? what would you change to make it better?

I think the personas were successful as they were reminiscent of actual individuals with a detailed enough narrative to be believable.

However, the narrative for our second persona was slightly more outrageous as time constraints had not allowed for a more thorough investigation into the other similarities between the people making up the character. This resulted in the fabrication of some of the details. Filling in the blanks and making assumptions inevitably resulted in a more stereotypical character.

If I could change anything I would reinterpret our data and see if there weren’t maybe more commonalities than differences between the two personas (in terms of the initial data that they represented) and if there was a way to maybe have combined the two. Perhaps a character that had a more utilitarian approach during the working week but a more leisurely approach on the weekend.