Usability On Air

About personach could read in one of my earlier posts on this blog ( "The persona for you brother" ). In summary persona (or archetype) is characteristic, the description of a potential user of the recipient of our application. It may or may not belong to the group goal (targetu).

We already know what a persona, and what happens to it. One of the essential features of the name (usually your name) persona. Well - as it is called to be good? Different people have different names. Some call them in reference to the type of character, temperament, interests or profession, for example Sophia Stubborn, Charles Packer, Kamila Frigid, etc. Still others use the name or brand fancy funny - so that somehow stood out or was associated.

Is this a good approach? Like most things in terms of interface design "it depends". It depends on what group of people in contact with the person, their knowledge about the project and its users. It also depends on the individual 'associative factors', which unfortunately we have no influence (and well: D).

I stubbornly adheres to the approach that should be familiar persona of each member of the project team: from the marketer and the developer ending. Client also should know it (and as far as possible) to be fully aware, for whom we create an application or service. For this they should be called normally, naturally, without unnecessary frills and associations. Note that this group of people involved in the project, it is a lot of people involved mentally giving a playing field for the previously mentioned "associative factors." Well, just the place I come to conclusions. Is the name that will benefit us? Will there be adequate and whether it will introduce undesirable associations or misinterpretation?

Let me quote here a fragment derived from the article www.cooper.com :

The term "Joe Six Pack" has frequently been used in the 2008 presidential campaign. This is a good example of how using "soundbite" names for your persona work against your need for a specific target design That keeps everyone on the team focused on the same idea.

In NPR's Morning Edition program "York Voters Untangle Rhetoric On Race" Renee Montagne, Steve Inskeep, Michele Norris asked 15 voters from York Pennsylvania what they thought of When they heard the term "Joe Six Pack." The got a variety of responses:

Mohammad Khan, an immigrant from Bangladesh, owns a diner with a giant American flag painted on the building. "Joe Six-Pack is people just like me - work every day, pay Their taxes."

"When I think Joe Six-Pack, I think of the hunter and his gun and his dog, and that's a definite white man out in the countryside," says Blanche Hake, a retired teacher who is white.

Margie Orr, who's black, says "The others are lazy. They do not work as hard, so that's where the Joe Six-Pack comes in. He's a hard-working white man. "

Based on this example and their own experiences, continue to insist that the medium and large teams, naming the natural is less risky than creating associative names. Of course, the harder it is to associate the beginning of a specific profile with a suitable name, but it's a matter of time and the memory of self-discipline. For smaller projects or groups of people who know very well (in a small circle), you can freely use associational names with lower risk of misinterpretation. But if you ask me, that in this case was placed on minimizing the risk of memory a little bit lazy. Besides, a little mental workout did not hurt anyone yet.

To avoid having to invent names, I recommend the collection of popular names of the Polish (PDF 752KB) . He successfully and I use it serves me very well :)

If the above article you like, subscribe to the RSS feed and stay up to date with the latest on the blog!

See also

• The persona for you brother