James Fehon, Apina Ahilan & Eleni Chrysafis
Going through Think Aloud technique and observations gave me an interesting view of some of the particular issues with our example sites – as well as the feelings and frustrations which are regular occurrence in online transactions.
The technique seems like it would take practice. While you don’t want a “expert test subject” because this would mean you’re not getting real information, you do need to support and explain the approach to the person you’re asking to think aloud. In a busy setting it can also be hard to detect responses and inflections in voice so the setting is also something that would be worth considering.
Jason was a fastidious, nerdy, geometrophile – and thinking through his perspective on an issue brought ideas that we wouldn’t otherwise have focussed on. Usually the process of using empathy is to imagine someone elses needs, but invariable sees your own experiences and priorities taking a large role.
The approach of using stories in particular was a great help, as the other designers in our team could each describe a scenario and add to the depth of the solution through articulating different needs, experiences or approaches.
We ended up with a geometric sushi generating phonebooth … not something we’d have typically designed if we’d taken approaches we were all familiar with.
Doge says: Such design thinking, very idea generating. Wow!
The Experience Prototyping workshop certainly got me out of my comfort zone – but that was after all part of the point of it.
Our group decided to tackle the challenge of sleeping in airplanes, focussing on the experience of red-eye flights. After a warmup got us thinking physically, The physical imaginations of setting a scene did actually start to help us feel and sense a memory we all had. It helped us to approach thinking about the problem in a different way without necessarily approaching things in a typical way.
We imagined the noises and pains that we would encounter, and began a divergent bucket list of product features for our “sleep helmet for long haul flights”. Our ideation was varied and additive (we didn’t cut things out too much by the time we ended the exercise, but testing the viability would be easily possible in another round of this activity).
It was possibly a little difficult to coordinate four people in through a bodystorming activity, as it involves physically instructing people to act out a scenario. It’s definitely a skill that could be developed.
I imagine that “experience” problems involving interactions in the real world would be the most suited to this activity.
Sustainability as a workplace conversation
Meet “Harried Harriet*”, the Persona we brought together by hearing a few public transport users experiences and finding common themes.
The experience of creating a single persona by merging different experiences recorded in interview data was both evidence based, and unstructured. We needed enough rigour to form the basis for the Persona and enough creativity / randomness to give Alex her quirky individualistic empathise-able qualities.
With a sample of six people interviewed we found enough commonality between two groups of 3 people to form two separate coherent personas. They’re were some clear trends in terms of time spent, daily activities and areas of residence. We gave our persona some other demographic details which conceivably could match these common attributes.
Alex is definitely like someone you probably have some memory of knowing, but isn’t yet a relatable persona. We probably need to describe her interests and motivations in life to make her a little less of an enigma. She’s a bit shy but some extra colour to the sheet should bring out her relatable side.