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?

  • The experience creating the personas was an interesting process. The first step was in pairs. Ali and I asked each other questions regarding public transport. We soon discovered that we were polar opposites regarding the frequency we catch trains. I catch the train daily where Ali, catches pubic transport once a year. What we did have in common was our experience in its use. We both enjoyed certain aspects and disliked more or less the same things. When we combined forces with our neighbouring group we were able to collate the facts concisely. What we gathered, Ali again was on the other side of the spectrum in terms of frequency. Adis, Pistachio and myself were all frequent in our use of it. Our combined motivation was a commonality; so were our modes, our frustrations and activities whilst on commute. However what were dissimilar were our travel times, our favourites, and cultural background. There was sufficient commonality to make a coherent persona but a second was needed as well, as Ali’s frequency of use was a significant factor. Two personas that sit on the fringe of two oppose frequency of use of public transport were created. They reflect the frequency of Adis, Pistachio and myself and one in reflection of Ali’s frequency – the busy commuter and the casual traveller.

2_Do you think your final persona was successful in generating empathy with users? What would you change to make it better?

  • I think the two personas are a successful model for generating empathy to users as it demonstrates two extremes. What would have made it a more effective model would be to have a persona, which reflects a commuter, whose frequency of travel is a median of both personas created.IMG_1063IMG_1159IMG_1160