Boxes and Arrows: Comments by Robert Skrobe

Robert Skrobe — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:00:08 GMT

I think this article is absolutely brilliant.

I’ve been struggling with personas for a long, long time. Not in terms of creating them or leveraging them in my work as an information architect, but with integrating them as a communication tool amongst teams.

Like all things with political overtones and buy-in aspects, personas have problems. First, from where they originate from, and second, how they’re written. Creative departments I’ve worked with in the past would discount personas altogether because of who originally crafted them (this includes persona creation by committee, where egos tend to dominate the direction of the initiative). There are usually conflicts on how any qualitative information can be meaningful to the business, much less start a common dialog about user goals, when departmental goals around results take precedent.

However, analytics and hard numbers have ties to revenue and profits, especially with companies that rely on ad-serving plays to illustrate market share (like my current employer). Analytics touches marketing, sales, execs, and project teams, and it’s usually indicated as a success metric in requirements documents (i.e. KPI’s, % uplift from baseline, etc.). Thus, if personas can be derived from this data at its base via the suggestions in this article, I think you have a great blueprint to work from.

I think with Step 5, I wanted a bit more detail on techniques or methods (even more examples) to tie in qualitative data (if available) into the persona mix. Specifically, trends between identified user types based on demographics that could tie into analytic data. If the parallels can be identified and matched, you have some good gateways to work on the ‘why’ as Andrew put it.

Thank you very much for posting this article. I know I’m coming across as a fan boy, but I can’t stress how long it’s been since I’ve seen something compelling about persona creation enough to remark on it.

Robert Skrobe — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:06:25 GMT

Whoops. I posted my comment too soon.
The second paragraph was missing the following sentence, after ”... of the initiative).:
“Likewise, the common language personas are meant to facilitate between departments as part of the project process is usually overlooked, especially with certain areas of the business in constant ‘firefighting’ mode with too little staff to cover the workload. (new paragraph)”

Also, I meant ‘behavioral trends’ in that second to last paragraph.
Hmm, the comments system here needs a 5-minute edit window after posting. :)

Robert Skrobe — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:44:47 GMT

Great article so far. I especially liked the bits contrasting IA’s and IxD’s and their crossovers in terms of roles and deliverables (and realizing I do a lot of both currently).

With your section on writing skills, could this aspect potentially bridge several related disciplines? For example, could you lump a content management specialist, a technical writer and a marketing specialist in the same realm, if all three rely on demonstrating a command of their languages and/or ability to craft a particular voice in their work?

Robert Skrobe — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:10:28 GMT

With the second one, it probably depends also on context, but essentially you have two good scenarios there. :)

Robert Skrobe — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:10:46 GMT

Very well put together John. Thanks for the article.

I’ll be forwarding this article to a couple of project members that are re-examining site search and looking for some best practices. Couldn’t have been more timely.

Robert Skrobe — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:07:06 GMT

Hi Anthony,

Interesting and well written article. I’ve been looking forward to Part 2 for a while now.

Do you think the UX Dreamteam you outline can operate in a work culture that can’t meet their personal and professional expectations of success and fulfillment? For the caliber of talent and temperament the Dreamteam would contain, what type of ideal environment should exist?