Describe your experience of creating personas from different users’ perspectives gathered in the interview data. Was there enough commonality between the four people interviewed to form a coherent persona? or did it make more sense to create a second different persona?
I found creating the personas really enjoyable. I found it hard to interview someone and write everything down at the same time however with such a short interview it was easy to recall the key points made. The data collected was common enough to create one persona, sometimes we found it hard to deal with outlying information because there were two people who were very similar and the other two fluctuated being in the majority data group and being the minority. This would be a lot easier if we were creating user personas from interviewees not in the research group because people felt very strongly about including particular nuances that were really the supported position.
Do you think your final persona(s) was successful in generating empathy with users? what would you change to make it better?
Our group managed to create our persona in a way that synthesised 75% of our interview information in a concise and logical way. The second persona was probably a bit weaker but just because we didn’t have the empirical evidence to back it up, so next time it would be good to have more interviews to create a more complete persona that was representative of the 2nd collective.
How did this exercise help you build empathy with prospective users?
Initially reading the one very detailed interview I did not really empathise with the interviewee, he seemed very lazy and continually contradicted himself. however, reading it through again when I was writing out post its all the most interesting insights were buried in a very detailed story, and in those detailed stories there were very consistent pains, needs, and desires. It helped with empathy because it removes all the “noise” from interviews.
How did the clustering of information help you to understand user needs?
Clustering helped to identify and visually represent which needs were common across users and which were outlying data points.
What was difficult or challenging with the technique? how would you do it better next time?
I wasn’t writing enough my cards and had little to no context. Next time I would write them as more detailed I was also repeating points on cards (I think next time if there is a reoccurring statement I will put an ‘*’ next to it to remind me that it was important)
- While traditional note taking is primarily written text Sketchnoting combines the use of visual and verbal notation to visualise a story. Sketchnoting also has loose rules around formatting (radial, top to bottom, flow etc.) depending on personal preference compared to the structured format of the traditional method.
- The benefits of sketchnoting for me is that once completed I have an easy visual reference to stimulate my thinking back to the point that was being made, also a handy tool to communicate what happened to others. Similarly I don’t have to read through line by line of the same handwriting to find a specific point because there is usually a graphic that identifies the topic at that particular point on the page.
- As a sketchnoter I find it really hard not to revert to writing everything down. I also find different formatting limiting sometimes due to space constraints, and that I will often move on without completing pictures and then when I go back to them I have forgotten what I was trying to draw. Like everything I think it requires practice.