Describe you 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?

Commonalities. I found it very fascinating uncovering similarities we have as a group as we answered questions about a specific topic. Coming from different nations, specially, makes it a lot more eye opening and entertaining. This activity has yet again shattered a few mindsets I had, uncovered surprising information, brought down walls, too, and has yet again recalibrated my mind further to see things from a different and fresher perspective.


The topic we chose is about our experience in catching and using public transportation. 3 of us often use trains and buses, while 1 mostly walks or uses her bicycle, and only catches the bus on certain occasions. Reviewing our data, we found out that while we have a lot in common, we still have varying factors that makes it difficult to actually combine everything into a single, coherent persona. We had 2 distinct groupings in both the demographic and behavioural variables, but crosschecking these groupings, we only came up with 2 people who actually share very similar variables, so we combined these two to form one persona. For the remaining 2 persons in the group, we didn’t find enough data to actually combine them or create separate personas out of them. We can probably create two more but then to make a persona out of a single person’s data just doesn’t seem too reliable.

Do you think your final persona(s) was successful in generating empathy with users?

However, I find that the final persona we come up with strongly represents the commonalities we found in our group. It empathises well with the main characteristics of the group, and I think that despite the differences of the other 2 persons who were not included in the persona, they are still closely tied to the common variables identified that disregarding the differences seems justified. But of course, if more data could be gathered, and we find strong reasons to actually highlight these differences, then it can become completely logical to create separate personas for the differences cited.


What would you change to make it better?

To improve the results of this activity, I think it would help to have more participants in order to have more data to work with, and stronger basis for the results. It’s nice that we don’t have a specific goal or topic we’re working on as it keeps us from having a bias and working out the data towards results that would favour our needs. But it would still definitely be of great importance to ensure that the variables we are measuring are actually relevant to the topic.