Researching Usability

Posts Tagged ‘AquaBrowserUX Personas

In this final part of the persona creation series I will introduce the personas we created and discuss how we plan to keep the personas relevant and current. As mentioned in the previous blog, we created 4 personas based on our interviews. These personas were:

Pete, the progressive browser
Badaal, the search butterfly
Eve, the e-book reader
Sandra, the search specialist

Full details of each persona can now be viewed on the project wiki. It is also possible to download a Word version of the personas from the Wiki if required.

Looking at the full personas in the wiki, there a few features of them worth mentioning:

  • We decided to recreate some of the scales we used when segmenting the groups. We felt that this provided a quick snapshot of the persona in addition to the more descriptive background which hopefully brought the persona to life.
  • We used photos from iStockphoto.com and http://www.sxc.hu/
  • In addition to background and demographic information we also added sections including Personal Goals, Frustration & Pain Points, Typical Tasks and Information Seeking Behaviour. These were based on the categories we used when writing summaries for each participant.
  • We tried to create an alliteration of the persona’s name and their characteristic behaviour to make them more memorable e.g. Pete the progressive browser

Dissemination and future-proofing personas

In addition to publicising the personas through the blogging streams (WordPress and twitter), we have tried where possible to include as much raw data and project documentation as possible on the project wiki. As mentioned in part 1, we had difficulty recruiting staff and consequently were unable to create a persona which represented them. If it’s possible to conduct interviews with University staff members in future projects, an additional persona for staff could be added to the collection. By providing as much raw data as possible in addition to full explanations of the methods used, it should be possible for other groups to create their own personas using the same template.

During this year’s UPA Conference in Munich a presentation on mobile personas highlighted the importance of making them forward thinking. The presentation discussed the dangers of personas becoming outdated and the consequences of this on product design. This is not just important in mobile design, outdated personas are potentially dangerous and could have a negative rather than positive impact on a project. Tom Allison presents a number of ways that personas can become outdated or ‘Zombies’ in his excellent presentation, UX in the Real World: There’s no such thing as “No Persona” (see descriptions below). Reflecting on the process we have taken to create our personas, I am confident that our personas are not zombies, however that is not to say that they cannot ‘be turned’ in the future. To guard against this possibility it is important to encourage others to continue the work, adding more interviews and details appropriate to their work in order to make them appropriate. In our project we were interested in the persona’s attitude to UoE Aquabrowser and Voyager catalogues. However, the information seeking behaviour of each persona is much more general and has the potential to be used as a basis for other academic library use-cases. Providing a thorough account of how the personas were created should hopefully make it easier for others to create their own set of system-specific personas.

Descriptions of the different types of Zombie Personas by Tom Allison:

Mirror Personas: These are the end-user models that get used in the absence of any other reference or description. Anyone on the project team that needs to make a design decision simply asks themselves what they would want in that situation (i.e., they metaphorically look in the mirror). Usually that is not a very good reflection of what the targeted end-user would actually want. Often the difference in these two perspectives can render a result anywhere from terribly frustrating to completely useless to the eventual end-users.

Undead Personas: These are personas that were in fact constructed at one point in a project but that are no longer truly “alive” to the project. They may be hanging on the design team’s wall, or sitting in a report somewhere online or in a drawer. They exist (that’s the “undead” part), but they exert none of the positive effects that a “good persona” can. They may be the worst sort of persona in that they give the team the false confidence that they have “done personas” and they are probably most responsible for the bad reputation that personas sometimes have – in that, the team “did personas” but “it was a waste of time” because they did not keep them alive to the overall process in order to reap the benefits of their work.

Unicorn/Frankenstein Personas: These are personas dreamed up or slapped together from pre-existing parts by someone in the project team. Regardless of how they are used, the signal they give is not a true one. They no more reflect the actual end-user than the programmers mirror persona does and team members who understand that they are based on nothing more than someone’s imagination tend to resent them rather than view them as a resource. The don’t work like good personas and they are resented by those in the know. These along with their undead brethren lead to many with limited experience with personas to have a negative impression of them.

Stupid User Personas: These are perhaps the hardiest of the zombie personas. If personas are built or even just thought about and kept out of the “light of collaborative day” – that is, are not shared and publicized widely and integrated into every stage of a process – then they tend toward negative or dismissive  models of the end-user. Teams whose only access to the end-user is a combination of direct communication, interruption and negative feedback to their delivered product are very likely to cultivate these personas in the absence of “good personas”.

Conclusions and reflections

It’s difficult  to be subjective when evaluating the success of personas you were involved in creating, particularly because the personas have only just been created. Feedback from others will hopefully provide one way to measure their success. The realism and believability of the personas is important and something I believe we have managed to achieve but I am always interested to know if others agree and if there are any improvements we could make. Having spent a little time working with some* of the personas to recruit participants for the usability testing of Work package 3 (Objective 3) I have made some observations:

There are not huge differences between Baadal and Eve. The differentiating factors are the consumption of digital resources (e.g e-books) and use of the University digital libraries. On many other scales they are the same or very similar. This has made it a little trickier to recruit to each persona as often the details provided by willing participants makes them difficult to categorise as one or the other. This evidence provides a compelling argument that these personas could be merged. However, there is also an argument that participants do not have to fit neatly into one persona or another. For the purpose of the project we will continue to use three individual personas. It will be possible to evaluate the success of the personas over the course of time.

* Findings from the interviews led to the decision to test with students as these are the primary target audience for UoE Aquabrowser. Consequently we used personas Pete, Badaal and Eve in recruitment.

In Lorraine’s last blog she described the data gathering methods used to obtain representative data from users of Edinburgh University’s Library services, the purpose of which was to identify patterns in user behaviours, expectations and motivations to form the basis of our personas. Raw data can be difficult to process and it is impossible to jump from raw notes to finished persona in one step, hence our six step guide.

There is no one right way to create personas and it depends on a lot of things, including how much effort and budget you can afford to invest. There are lots of articles on the web detailing various approaches and after much reading we decided to rely on 2 main sources of information which we felt best suited our needs.

One resource was the Fluid Project Wiki which is an open, collaborative project to improve the user experience of community source software and provides lots of useful guidance as well as sample personas. The other resource which we heavily relied on throughout the whole process was Steve Mulder’s book The User Is Always Right: A Practical Guide to Creating and Using Personas for the Web, which contains lots of great advice as well as step-by-step coverage on user segmentation.

There are three primary approaches to persona creation, based on the type of research and analysis performed:

  1. Qualitative personas
  2. Qualitative personas with quantitative validation
  3. Quantitative personas

There are a number of important steps to go through in order to get from raw data to personas and I will now explain the tools and methods used to generate our segments and personas for anyone who wishes to follow in our footsteps.

The first thing we did was to plan out a schedule of work which consisted of the following:

  1. Review and refine interview notes in the project wiki and flesh out user goals
  2. Write summaries for each of the participants
  3. Do a Two by Two comparison, to identify key similarities/differences
  4. Identify segments
  5. Write the personas
  6. Review personas

Step 1: Review/refine notes

We spent a day reviewing our notes in the wiki and fleshing out goals by referring to written notes taking during each interview, checking the audio recordings where necessary. We worked as a team which was beneficial as we were both present for each interview and therefore had a good grasp of all the data in front of us. Once we were happy with our set of notes, we printed out participant’s interview notes and attached each to the white board to make it easier to review all data grouped together.

Step 2: Summarise participants

Next step was to summarise each of our 17 participants (try to figure out who are these people) based on the following 4 categories.

  • Practical and personal goals
  • Information seeking behaviour
  • How they relate to library services
  • Skills, abilities and interests

We used different coloured post-it notes to denote each of the above categories. Once we had gone through this process for each participant, our whiteboard was transformed into a colourful mirage of notes.

We were now ready to start a two-by-two comparison of participants.

Step 3: Two-by-Two Comparisons

The next step utilised the two-by-two comparison method, a technique advocated by Jared Spool at User Interface Engineering (UIE.com). This works by reading 2 randomly chosen participant summaries and listing attributes that make the participants similar and different. We then replaced one of the summaries with another randomly chosen one and repeated the process until all summaries were read.

Below is a list of some of the distinctions identified between our participants, using this method:

  • Type of library user
  • Years at Edinburgh University
  • Use of Edinburgh University library resources (digital and physical)
  • Use of external resources
  • System Preference (Classic or Aquabrowser)
  • Attitude to individual systems
  • Information seeking behaviour

We then created a scale for each distinction identified during the two-by-two comparison and determined end points. Doing so allowed us to place each participant on the scale and directly compare them.  Most variables can be represented as ranges with two ends. It doesn’t matter whether a participant is a 7 or 7.5 on the scale; but what matters is where they appear relative to other participants. The image below provides an example of our 12 scales mapped for each of our 17 participants.

Step 4: Identify Segments

Now that we had all our participants on the scales, we then colour coded each individual to make it easier to identify groupings of participants on each of the scales.  We looked for participants who were grouped closely together across multiple variables. Once we found a set of participants clustering across six or eight variables, we saw this as a major behaviour pattern which formed the basis of a persona.

After quite a bit of analysis, we identified 6 major groupings, each identifying an archetype / persona, which we gave a brief description to on paper, outlining the characteristics and identifying their unique attributes.

After reviewing each description we realised that group 6 was very similar to group 4 and so merged these two sets together, leaving 5 groups at the end of this step.

When carrying out this step, it is important to remember that your groups should:

  • explain key differences you’ve observed among participants
  • be different enough from each other
  • feel like real people
  • be described quickly
  • cover all users

Step 5: Write the Personas

We were now ready to write up our 5 personas.  For each group we added details around the behavioural traits based on the data we had gathered, describing their goals, information seeking behaviours and system usage amongst other things. We also talked about frustrations and pain points as well as listing some personal traits to make them feel more human.

We gave each persona a name and a photo which we felt best suited their narrative.  We tried to add parts of participant’s personalities without going overboard as this would make the persona less credible.  We kept the detail to one page and based it on a template provided by the Fluid Project wiki. It’s important to keep persona details to one page so they can be referred to quickly during any discussions. Remember that every aspect of the description must be tied back to real data, or else it’s shouldn’t be included in the persona.

Some people prefer to keep their persona details in bullet points, but we felt that a narrative would be far more powerful in conveying each of our persona’s attitudes, needs and problems.  We also added a scale to each persona, detailing their behaviour and attitudes, which serves as a visual summary of the narrative and main points.  It may be useful to refer to Fluid Persons Format page for example of these templates: http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Persona+Format

Step 6: Review the Personas

Once our personas were written, we reviewed them to ensure they had remained realistic and true to our research data. We felt that 2 personas in particular had more similar behaviours and goals than differences so we merged them into one complete persona. This left us with 4 library personas representing the students and librarians who were interviewed:

  • Eve the e-book reader: “I like to find excerpts of books online which sometimes can be enough. It saves me from having to buy or borrow the book.”
  • Sandra the search specialist: “In a quick-fire environment like ours we need answers quickly”
  • Pete the progressive browser: “Aquabrowser and Classic, it’s like night and day”
  • Baadal the search butterfly: “Classic is simple and direct but Aquabrowser’s innovative way of browsing is also good for getting inspiration.”


A full description of the personas can be found on the persona profiles page of our project wiki: https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/display/UX2/persona+profiles

Research has shown that a large set of personas can be problematic as the personas all tend to blur together. Ideally, you should have only the minimum number of personas required to illustrate key goals and behaviour patterns, which is what we ended up with. Finally, to ensure we had a polished product, we asked a colleague who was not involved in the persona creation, to review the personas for accuracy in spelling and grammar.

Conclusion

From my experience, I would say that the most difficult step of the process was getting from step 3 (Two by Two comparison) to step 4 (Identify segments). Although we had initially planned to spend 3 days creating our personas, in the end it took us 5+ days.  If we were to repeat this exercise, I would allocate adequate time directly after each individual interview to write up detailed notes on the interviewee, detailing their specific goals, behaviours, attitudes and information seeking behaviour, rather than waiting until a later date to review all the notes together, as described in Step 2. In saying this, there are various different approaches which can be taken when creating personas and we would be very interested to learn what other researchers might do with the same data.

In the concluding part of this blog series, “User Research and Persona Creation Part 3: Introducing the personas”, Lorraine will discuss how we plan to keep the personas relevant and current in the future.

In a previous blog I evaluated the progress of the data gathering stage of persona creation for both Aquabrowser UX and UX2.0. As the data gathering has now been completed and analysed, we have the beginnings of our personas. It therefore seemed a good time to reflect on the process as well as document and review our methods. In the first of three blogs detailing our persona creation, I will first talk about the data gathering methods and reflect on its success.

Originally the plan had been to create personas by conducting qualitative research and validating the segments with quantitative data. Unfortunately we underestimated the time taken and resources required to conduct the qualitative research and as such were unable to validate the personas using quantitative research. Although this approach is good when you want to explore multiple segmentation models and back up the qualitative findings with quantitative data, personas created without this extra step are still valid and extremely useful. As this is the first time the team has conducted persona data gathering, it took longer to do than anticipated. Coupled with the restrictions on time and budget for this project, the additional validation was always an ambition. I’ve stepped through the process we used below to allow others to adopt it if needed. The process is a good template for conducting all types of interviews and not just to create personas.

1. Designing the interviews

When designing the interview questions the team first set about defining the project goals. This was used as a basis for the interview questions and also helped to ensure that the questions covered all aspects of the project goals.

Goal 1: In relation to University of Edinburgh digital library services, and AquaBrowser, identify and understand;

  • User general profiles (demographic, academic background, previous experiences)
  • User behaviours (e.g. information seeking) / use patterns
  • User attitudes (inc. recommendations)
  • User goals (functional, fit for purpose)
  • Data, content, resource requirements

To keep the interview semi-structured and more conversational, the questions created were used primarily as prompts for the interviewer and to ensure that the interviewees provided all the information being sought. More general questions were posed as a springboard for more open discussion. Each question represented a section of discussion with approximately six questions in total. Each question in turn had a series of prompts. The six opening questions are detail below:

  1. Could you tell me a bit about yourself…?
  2. Thinking now about how you work and interact with services online, what kind of activities do you typically do when you sit down at the computer
  3. I want to find out more about how you use different library services, can you tell me what online library services you have used?
  4. We want to know how you go about finding information…What strategy do you have for finding information?
  5. Finally, we’d like to ask you about your own opinions of the library services..  a. What library or search services are you satisfied with and why? b. Why do you choose <mentioned services> over other services?

Interviewees were also given the opportunity at the end of the interview to add anything they felt was valuable to the research or which they just wanted to get off their chest. Several prompt question were modified or added to the librarian interview script, otherwise the overall scripts were very similar

When the interview was adapted into a script for the interviewer, introductory and wrap-up sections were added to explain the purpose of the interview and put the interviewees at ease. These sections also provided prompts to the interviewer to ensure permission was obtained beforehand and that the participant was paid at the end.

2. Piloting the interview

The script was piloted on a colleague not involved in the project a few days before the interviews began. This provided an opportunity to tweak the wording of some of the questions so they were clearer, time the interview to ensure it could be conducted in approximately 45 minutes and also help the team to become more familiar with the questions and prompts. Necessary changes were consequently made to the script to be used for the first ‘real’ interview.

3. Recruitment – Creating a screener

In order to recruit a range of users at the university, a screener was devised. This would provide information on each participant’s use patterns and some basic demographic details. It also allowed us to find out the availability of each participant as the interviews were intended to be conducted over a four-week period in June and July. It also made it easier to collect contact details from users who had already agreed to take part. As with most user research where incentives are involved, there is always the danger that participants will be motivated by the reward of payment and consequently will say whatever they need to say in order to be selected. As we were looking for users who were familiar with Aquabrowser and Voyager (The ‘Classic’ catalogue), we disguised these questions among other library services. This prevented the purpose of the research from being exposed to the participant. The screener questions we used are detailed below:

Screener questions:

  1. Please confirm if you are willing to take part in a 45 minute interview? Note: There will be a £15 book voucher provided for taking part in an interview.
  2. In addition to interviews we are also recruiting for website testing sessions (45-60 min). Would you would be interested in taking part?
    Note: There will be a £15 book voucher provided for taking part in a website testing session.
  3. What do you do at the university? Undergrad: 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/Post grad/PhD/Library staff/Teaching staff/Research staff/other.
  4. What is your department or program of study?
  5. Which of the following online services do you use at the University and how many hours a week do you spend on each? Classic catalogue/ Aquabrowser catalogue/Searcher/E-Journal search/ PubMed/ My Ed/Web of Knowledge/Science/Science Direct.
  6. How much time per week do you spend in any of Edinburgh University libraries? None/Less than 1 hour a week/1-3 hours a week/4-10 hours a week/More than 10 hours a week.
  7. Please state your prefered mode of contact to arrange interview date/time.
  8. Please leave your name.
  9. Please leave relevant contact details: Email and/or telephone number.

Thank you very much for your time.  If you are selected to participate in the current study, we’ll be in touch to see when would be the best time for your session.

4. Recruitment – Strategy

A link to the screener was publicised through a variety of streams. An announcement was created and placed in the MyEd portal which every person within the university has access to (staff and students). In addition to this, an event was created which was also visible within the events section of MyEd. Several email invitations were sent via mailing lists requesting participation. These lists included the School of Physics, Divinity and Information Services staff.

To encourage students and staff to participate an incentive was provided. A £15 book voucher was promised to those who agreed to take part in an interview. The screener was launched on 21st May and ran until the interviews were completed on 15th July. Interviews were scheduled to take place over four weeks which began on 17th June. Six interviews were carried out on average each week, taking place over two separate days. These days varied, but often took place on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. This was influenced by the availability of team members to carry out the interviews. Each participant was given the opportunity to name their preferred location for the interview. Those interviews that can take place in the user’s own environment are more likely to put the participant at ease and consequently produce better interviews. However, every participant ended up opting to meet at a mutually convenient location – the main library. This public venue is familiar to all participants and centrally located making it less intimidating and easy to find. It also enabled more interviews to be conducted over a short period of the day as travelling to various locations was not required.

Participants were recruited based on a number of factors. Their position in the university (student, staff etc.), their familiarity (or in some cases not) with library services, especially Aquabrowser and Voyager (Classic catalogue). Individuals who spent a reasonable amount of time using these services were of interest but a number of individuals who did not spend much time using the services were also recruited to provide comparisons. Obviously their availability was also an important factor and anyone who was not available in June and/or July were excluded.

Although the screener speeded up the recruitment process, there was still a number of individuals on the list who did not respond to additional email requests to participate. This is always frustrating when people have apparently registered their interest when completing the screener. Despite this we managed to recruit 19 participants from a list of 82 respondents which was approximately a 23% response rate. Unfortunately from these 19 individuals, two individuals dropped out at the last-minute. One person did not show up and another cancelled due to ill-health. As these cancellations occurred on the last day of interviews and did not represent a under-represented demographic group, the decision was taken not to recruit replacements and to conclude the data gathering stage with 17 participants.

Unfortunately there were some groups who were under-represented. The biggest concern was the limited number of staff and in particular,  lecturers in the study. This ultimately meant that this group could not be adequately analysed. Time limitations meant it was difficult to undertake additional strategies to target these individuals. The data gathered was only able to provide personas representing those interviewed and consequently a persona for faculty staff was not possible. Any future persona development work should ensure that a variety of lecturers and researchers are interviewed as part of the process.

5. Conducting the interviews

Before the interviews began, several preparations had to be made. Booking audio recording equipment, sourcing a digital camera for images and creating consent forms for both audio and visual documentation was done. Two team members were present for every interview. One would take notes while the other interviewed the participant. These roles were swapped for each new interview, giving both team members the chance to be both interviewer and note-taker. After discussing how best to take notes it was decided that having a printed template for each interview which the note-taker could complete would be a good strategy. This would help to keep notes in context as much as possible and make the note-taking process as efficient as possible. Doing so removes the danger of important information being lost. The note-taker would also record time stamps each time something ambiguous or important was said so that clarification could be made later by listening to the recordings.

After each interview the team transferred the notes onto the project Wiki. Doing so allowed a post-interview discussion to take place where both members reflected on their understanding of the interviewees comments. It also provided the opportunity to review the interview and discuss improvements or changes that could be made to the next one. This was particularly useful for the first few interviews.

Having two team members present for each interview was time-consuming but also provided many benefits. During the interview it gave the interviewer a chance to consult with someone else before concluding the interview. Often the note-taker may have noted something the interviewer overlooked and this time at the end ensured that any comments made earlier could be addressed. In addition, any missed questions or prompts were asked at this point. It is also beneficial for all team members to be present when it comes to analysing the data at the end. Individuals do not have to rely heavily on the notes of another to become familiar with the participant. This is particularly important when it is not possible to have transcripts of each interview made. Finally, having a note-taker removes the burden from the interviewer who does not have to keep pausing the interview to note down anything that has been said. As these interviews were intended to be semi-structured and have a discursive feel, having a note-taker was crucial to ensuring that this was achieved.

Conclusion

Overall the interviews were quite successful. However, in future more interviews with staff should be conducted in addition to a web survey so that the segmentation can be validated. Full access to the documents created during the process and the resources consulted throughout can be found on the project Wiki.

In the second part of the series guest blogger, Liza Zambolgou will be discussing the segmentation process and how we analysed all of the data collected from the interviews.

Iterative evaluation process

Last month saw the project plan and conduct a contextual enquiry as part of the data gathering process for persona development. This field study involved gathering data from Edinburgh University library users in situ. The aims of the exercise was to understand the background of visitors, their exposure to Aquabrowser and their information seeking behaviour.

Two site visits were conducted on the 11th and 12th May in the main library at George Square. In addition to this longer (45 minute) user interviews are scheduled to take place starting in the week beginning 14th June (next week).

Below is a brief evaluation of this research phase. Detailed results will be published in a subsequent blog post.

SWOT analysis:

Strengths:

Recruitment of participants for longer interviews is going well. At last count we had 74 respondents from a selection of backgrounds including undergraduates, post graduates, PhD students, staff and librarians. Participant availability is also spread over June, August and September meaning that recruitment looks achievable.

We have reviewed the timing of the usability testing to take into account the persona work. Testing will now take place in two stages: 1. Aug and 2. Sept to capture data from 1. staff (when university is quiet) and 2. students (to increase availability during freshers week). This strategy will ensure that the persona research can be used effectively to recruit representative users.

By using a variety of resources, a master interview script has been created that will then be altered to suit different groups: students, staff, librarians. The interview will be piloted before the first interview takes place allowing any final changes to be made beforehand. The interviews themselves will be conducted in pairs to begin with, allowing the interviewer to concentrate on their questions while someone else takes rigorous notes. Doing so will also ensure no information is missed.

Weaknesses:

The contextual enquiry approach in the library has been limited by a number of factors. Timing of the exercise meant that meeting a range of library users was difficult. Exams were happening during this time meaning that the main library users were students studying. Consequently these students were very busy, stressed and engrossed in work for a large part of their time in the library. Trying to approach students to interview was therefore limited to those who were wandering around the main foyer. In addition, one of the biggest barriers to observing user behaviour of Aquabrowser was the limited awareness of it among students. Users currently have the choice of two catalogues, Voyager  and Aquabrowser. As a result, very few observations of students using Aquabrowser naturally were made.

A diary study has been proposed to complement the library observations and user interviews. However, the limited timescale and budget of the project will make it more difficult to recruit a willing participant. In addition, the level of resources required to run and manage such a study could be difficult  as it would be required to run alongside other ongoing work within the project and for the UX2.0 project.

Opportunities:

After meeting with engineer, Meindert from Aquabrowser, several opportunities have presented themselves. There is a real possibility of accessing services not currently implemented by Edinburgh University though a demo site and other University libraries. This will allow us to better understand ‘My Discoveries’ and observe how social services including user-generated ratings and reviews are used. It will be possible to demonstrate these services to University users in order to gauge acceptance of such technology and perhaps create a case for its implementation.

Threats:

Participant cancellations and no shows during interviews are always a threat in user research but with an extensive list of willing and pre-screened participants, finding replacements should not be a problem.

The scope of the project was narrowed after realising that was too wide to be evaluated in full. Narrowing the scope from ‘library in general’ to ‘digital library catalogues’ means the evaluation is more achievable within the timescale.


del.icio.us bookmarks

Twitter feed

Archive