Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Zef Fugaz

Zef Fugaz — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:07 GMT

Hi Chris – yes this technique does require some devotion from the ‘actors’ and is mostly suited to larger (or well-budgeted) projects where some actual user observation is possible. A vital ingredient though is the fun factor – software design and development can sometimes be a very ‘dry’ and ‘introverted’ – this technique makes the whole design process more thoughtful and engaging. I encourage the education sector to explore this technique for software design and measure the outcomes compared to alternative methods. I cannot prove that it actually improves the user experience over other methods, but it sure does improve awareness of the personas (users) within the software team, which has to be a good thing?

Zef Fugaz — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:15 GMT

I agree that wireframes are a technical document and that visual prototypes (containing real or sample content) are far more suitable for usability testing and client feedback. My own design team create wireframes in the first instance to establish the UI framework. Once we are happy with the framework the wireframes are then split in to two complementary models. The early wireframes evolve into ‘wireframe templates’ – these descibe the content elements/tags/metadata for each template (then used by the developers who are building a content management system or other software). The complementary model is a ‘visual prototype’ – this shows a contextural view of the wireframe, and contains actual content, labels and sample images – like the examples in your article. This system works really well for us. However, in our case we sometimes have to handover the Information Architecture to a branding or marketing agency who create the final visual designs (since we have perfectly capable visual designers in-house this constantly proves a challenge). As far as I’m concerned the Information Architecture is influenced by the visuals (colours, fonts, text sizes), so it can be quite tricky working with other design agencies who are primarily focused on the branding…

Zef Fugaz — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:38 GMT

Here’s my responses to some of the feedback so far:

————————————————————

Maree Kimberley said ”...I’ve got a feeling that if I suggested method acting for personas to people in our design team, they would squirm uncomfortably…”

Zef replies: Make ‘em squirm! But you don’t need to take the method to the extreme – it can be as simple as just making a conscious effort to see the scenarios and taskflows from the users/personas perspective. I’ve especially found this useful when conducting heuristic reviews – the method really adds context to the testing and now all my reviews are created around the user scenarios, as opposed to testing random pages or scenarios, which used to be norm.

————————————————————

Jamie Owen said ”...it does not involve multi-cultural or intercultural perspectives for your personas…”

Zef replies: Some interesting points you’ve raised Jamie and I’m sure this needs careful consideration. But keep in mind that the method is just one technique to aid the design process and is not a silver bullet! Basically, it’s just about encouraging usability professionals use personas more proactively and this technique works well for my team.

I did come across some cultural issues when testing the SJS website registration form (http://www.sjs.co.nz) – which is used by both New Zealand and international students. My experience on this project helped clarify my understanding the needs and perspectives of Asian students, which has helped on other projects.

————————————————————

Modern Man said ”...customers don’t want you to “become” them. They want to see something new and exciting both from products and sales people…”

Zef replies: I agree, and I’m not from the “the user is always right” camp. I simply use the method to help me understand where the users are coming from – which aids the design process. I think observational usability testing is still preferable as a reality check on designs – if you have the time, budget and access to the users!

————————————————————

Karin Vullings said ”...when in the design process this is typical helping? Did you yourself had any improv-lessons..?”

Zef replies: I find it helps in the early stages of the design, when creating task-flows and paper prototypes. Once the paper prototypes are advanced enough I’ll then usually test the designs on real users. As mentioned above I also use the method for conducting heuristic reviews – the checkpoints/heuristics are standardised – but the scenarios and pathways are ‘acted out’ from the users perspective.

As for improv-lessons – yes, I did some of these about 10 years ago! I also used to be a performer and amateur actor in my youth.

Zef Fugaz — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:39 GMT

Nick Besseling said ”...‘put yourself in a users shoes’ is a fundamental responsibility for any usability/interaction designer…”

Nick – I wholeheartedly agree, but in reality this doesn’t always happen – especially with less experienced designers.

Personally I have no problem seeing the world through the eyes of the personas/users – but in my experience may other designers/clients/developers quickly put the personas aside and immediately fall back to a self-centric view of the world.

I’ve seen many a usability review and sat in many meetings where the comments start with “I think this…” as opposed to “The [persona/user] is likely to experience this because of these reasons”.

So, I use the method as a technique to force a higher level of awareness/conciousness within my team of designers – it’s early days but I’m very happy with the results so far!

Zef Fugaz — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:53:44 GMT

I see Cooper have just posted a new article on ‘Taking personas too far’ – Kim Goodwin comments “Lately, we’ve been seeing a lot of gold-plated hammers—unnecessarily elaborate communication about personas—and some fundamental misunderstandings about the relationships among research, personas, and scenarios”.

She recently heard about a Web design agency building “persona living rooms” that are furnished and decorated according to the personas’ tastes and filled with magazines the personas read.

I guess this is an extreme form of method acting, but I agree with Kim that is taking it far too far!

In another Cooper article Chris Noessel says “They (personas) have names, faces, believable back stories, and clearly expressed goals. This is enough to get us to think differently, to adopt the intentional stance that puts our focus in the right place: on the person rather than the system or on the design process.”

I agree with Chris and this is also my intention with method acting – it moves the emphasis away from the designer’s world and into the world of the user.

Zef Fugaz — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:14:59 GMT

Unfortunately the article on Boxes and Arrows was not accompanied with the diagrams.

The article in context with the diagrams can now be viewed at http://www.zefamedia.co.nz/blog/2006/12/3/bring-your-pers…

Zef Fugaz — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 06:18:08 GMT

Thanks for the feedback. All I need to do now is find the time! I’m setting myself a goal of getting this done by the end of August 2007 and submitting it to B+A.