Describe your experience of creating personas from different users’ perspectives gathered in the interview data.
In order to involve the personX (eventually we called her Sakura) in the design process of improving and innovating currently existent system of public transport, our design group of 4 gathered to collect real data combined with our own user experiences for the public transportation.
The first step was to investigate users adequately to receive feedbacks, members of the group took turns to act as an interviewer, accompanied with the other three participators automatically converted their identity into interviewees. Despite some generic forms of Qs and probe like the frequency and reason for taking specific type of transport, the most impressive part serves as “whether you think the indicators of public transport are clearly enough”, as for me, as I usually choose to take trains according to my own living position, I think the electronic screen set in platforms and the relevant timetable indicated on the mobile apps such like TripView and Opal are enough for me to get the precise and timely info. In addition, the interviewees should provide basic demographic data like name, gender and age to help the design group act upon and improve the understanding of personX.
The second step was to deal with collected data across distributing them into groups of continuum and multiple-choice. We chose the representative variables namely “The distance from home to USYD Darlington campus”, “The frequency of taking PT” and “The fees spent on PT per week” as the continuum presenting genre, with two multiple-choice variables from data samples namely “The preferred type of taking PT” and “The preferred ways used as indicator to get off PT”. After mapping the interviewees upon each variable, we brought off one specific pattern to formulate our personX from two similarly representing data sample.
The final step was to define end goals of our extracted persona model. After capturing and analyzing 7 total patterns, we found it free to describe the conclusion of To do Y of our PersonX.
Was there enough commonality between the 4 people interviewed to form a coherent persona? Or did it make more senses to create a second different persona?
Indeed, during the user modelling process, the commonality was enough for us to clarify the coherent definition simply using the current 4 interview data across the design group. In our group, the two similar date came from two interviewees who live near campus, so it seemed definite for us to find the pattern and finalize the ultimate persona. The week3 tutorial went on well, so I think for this design processing, there is no necessity to create extra personas. But if there is no obvious pattern followed across the continuum and multiple-choice variables during other design processes (maybe one possible reason is the discrete data ), to accomplish the user modelling target, the design group needs to overthrow their conventional thinking and create some more personas.
Do you think your final persona(s) was successful in generating empathy with users? What would you change to make it better?
I think our final persona was successful during the generating empathy process with users, cause when filling in the narrative persona template, we found it easy for us to describe the user needs and get directly the pain points. The characteristics presented through certain pattern can be easily understood combined with visualized template, especially during the presentation and communication processes with other groups. To make the persona better, we need to perfect the user needs that can be directly used during the design process, trying to update the persona template more vivid and engaging with experienced skills, such as sketching skills served to define personX image.