David,
It seems to me that you are comparing two unrelated things when you argue
that speaking to an actual person is more advantageous than 'speaking' to a
persona.
Research involving actual people is a tool for analyzing specific behaviours
and their outcome (e.g. can a user pick up an iPod, navigate to the song
that they want, play it and adjust the volume without requiring a manual?
Can they figure out what the object is meant to do with a description?). In
this instance the designer is helping the user to achieve a goal in the most
obvious way possible... in essence they are attempting to make their design
'invisible' such that all that is obvious to the user is the task that they
are performing, not the structure of that task.
Personas, on the other hand, are not analytical tools, but creative tools.
While they might begin with statistical figures and user research they are a
creative interpretation of aggregate data referring to a user's
(buyer's?)desires, emotions and social behaviours. (e.g. do people want an
iPod? how can we make people love an iPod?) While they may act as an
'objectifying' force in meetings, as Todd has described quite well, they are
not objective in the sense that they include data that has been filtered and
creatively interpreted through the designers and the client.
Personas are abstract but in the initial stages of the design process they
are much less abstract then the murky form of the yet to be defined product
that is being designed. Perhaps there is no product at all yet... just a
community of people the client is trying to reach. They are trying to end up
with a design that is highly 'visible' to the buyer's emotions, beliefs and
desires. It is a social exersize rather than a scientific one.
The value of user research is defined by its ability to apply to as many
people as possible. Personas are looking at something more elusive in that
if they represent a large community's desires as they currently exist it is
likely that the product will be irrelevant once it is actually produced, due
to the nature of changing desires. So personas attempt to peer into the
future and appeal to a community of people that do not yet actually exist.
How could you actually go to these people as ask 'what do you want' when you
are trying to create something that they have never seen?
Personas are there before there is a product to react to, or user test, but
remain relevant as an adjunct to those principles that can be best
influenced by user testing. I do not see one replacing the other or one
precluding the use of the other.
In terms of proving out the value of the 'persona' tool i would suggest that
since it is buried deep in the creative aspects of the design process that
it might be like trying to prove the value of brainstorming or group
sketching... it may be impossible to draw a straight line from that specific
tool to the final success of the outcome.
If a team brainstorms and then the product fails, does that mean that
brainstorming is not an effective tool in the design process?
On a side note i am a bit baffled by your aversion to client 'buy in'. To me
'buy in' simply means that the client agrees to proceed as i, the designer,
is suggesting. Since it is their money that i am spending throughout the
design, manufacturing, marketing and distribution processes i would hope
that they have 'bought in' to my line of reasoning. I am imagining that you
are picturing designers as some sort of flim-flam artist trying to get the
client to 'buy in' to some snake oil.
Cheers,
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of David Sless
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 5:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Theories
Dear all,
I had meant to send the email below to the list as well as Mel. I now
realise that it went to Mel only. Sorry. Must have been phased by all
the travelling. Happily now back at my desk in oz.
------------
Mel,
I have no problem with theatre in design. On the contrary. What
bothers me about the Kelley article is the use of theatre to get
client buy in. In the advertising industry 'buy in' is important
because a great many advertising campaigns fail. When they do, it's
useful to the agency to have the client believe strongly in the
campaign, taking some ownership in it--in other words, 'buy in'. They
then cannot blame the agency when the campaign fails, without also
blaming themselves. Ad agencies have been doing this for a very long
time. The theatrical management of client presentations by ad
agencies can be quite sophisticated, like rain making ceremonies.
They are primarily designed to encourage strong conviction in the
client. Do they make it rain? To ask that, is to miss the point.
Is this a legitimate design method? I hope not.
My hope is based on moral optimism, which I value more than pragmatic
opportunism.
But that's just me.
David
--
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
Director • Communication Research Institute of Australia
• helping people communicate with people •
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
web: http://www.communication.org.au
On 02/11/2005, at 6:29 AM, Mel Fearman wrote:
> Do design and "theatre" have to be mutually exclusive? Some how,
> at some point, designers have to find a ways to invite their
> clients, colleagues and dare I say, "customers" along for the ride,
> especially when innovation is a desired outcome. The ten roles
> described, while perhaps facile and a little too chamber of
> commerce, could still be useful in recognizing that there are types
> of individuals who can help you get where you want to go, and types
> who are impediments.
>
> David Sless wrote:
>
>> harold nelson said:
>>
>>
>>> There is an excerpt in the most recent issue of Fast Company
>>> ( www.fastcompany.com/magazine/99/faces-of-innovation.html ) from
>>> a book by Tom Kelley, the General Manager of IDEO, titled "The
>>> 10 Faces of Innovation" (presented as personas). Kelley states
>>> that "The appeal of the personas is that they work. Not in
>>> theory or in the classroom but in the unforgiving marketplace."
>>> I am wondering if this is an example of what practitioners refer
>>> to as a 'design theory' as opposed to scientific theory, art
>>> theory etc.
>>>
>>
>> I hope not! The origins or lineage of this is about agencies
>> pitching for work, and getting 'buy in' from the client. The
>> 'success' here is in terms of persuading clients. As I understand
>> it, Tom Kelley is telling us about his recipe for a successful
>> pitch. This is about putting on a convincing performance in front
>> of the client. Agencies, particularly in the advertising industry
>> have been doing this for years. This is just the latest version
>> of it. This is all about theatre, not design.
>>
>> Does it lead to successful design? I have no idea.
>>
>
> -- J. Mel Fearman Building Services Manager Campus Security &
> Safety Langara College
>
|
