As I mentioned in my previous post, I recently was reminded of papers I wrote back in college for some philosophy courses that oddly deal directly with my professional life as a User Experience Designer. This next paper really resonated with my internal Interaction Designer, as it deals mainly with function and behavior.   Please bare in mind that my skills as a writer were not the greatest back then and I’m slightly embarrassed at the state in which I found them, regardless I hope you enjoy.

The Philosophy of Function

After looking over chapter seven in Nicomachean Ethics book one, I can’t see how one can relate the final cause to Aristotle’s function argument. The final cause opens the door to giving things in nature ambition, or to some extent desire. It implies that something is drawing an acorn nut into growing into a fully grown tree. There are a lot of unseen forces at work here, to pull a nut into a tree from some place unseen. I see the function argument as something different though, it gives a nut meaning or a man meaning. In the coming paragraphs I will show that there is a way to apply the function argument to nature, how you can apply the function argument to man, and the differences between the final cause and the function argument. These paragraphs will show how the function argument can be separated by the final cause and therefore be free of its scientific objections.

For us to be able to see how nature’s creatures and nature itself has a function we will need to examine various creatures, plants, and aspects of nature that plays a certain function to the world around it. There are many insects around the world that play a key role in their environment. They help protect various planets and help clean their environment around them. Coleptera.org is an organization devoted to the study of everything there is to know about beetles. In there overall description of what beetles are they give examples of what roles they play in their environment. There are a class of beetles that have the function of pollinating flowers and trees. Without this function many flowers would not be here today. Another class of function of a different class of beetles is to clean up the waste of other animals. The dung beetles feed on and reproduce in the dung of plant eating animals. By doing this function they get rid of millions of tons of dung in a year. If the dung beetles didn’t do its function, our forests would have been overrun and smothered with the dung of herbivores. We owe a lot to the function of the dung beetle, and many other beetle species that are out there.

Plants have many different functions depending on what they grow and where they grow. The Rice Unix Facility has a side site that discusses the Staghorn Cacti. The Staghorn has a protective function in its nectar that keeps it safe from insects. This nectar attracts other insects that will attack, remove, prey upon, or parasitize herbivores that would eat the cactus. The function of creating the nectar protects the all Staghorn Cacti from attack. This is a function just like out own eyes, ears, and hands. Since it is acceptable the since the eyes, ears, and hands have functions then so must we. Then it must be acceptable that since a part of the Cacti has the function of creating the nectar then so must the Staghorn Cacti have a function overall.

Finally there are aspects of nature that’s function keeps our world going basically. The North Atlantic Current, or the Gulf Stream, contributes to the stability to much of our world’s weather. What the Gulf Stream does basically according to the history of the Gulf Stream is bring warm water and air from the Gulf of Mexico all the way up to the British Isles. This brings warm weather to the eastern part of Canada and the western part of Europe. Theoretically if the Gulf Stream did not do this then this regions would just be extension of the Ice cap at the North Pole. If the Gulf Stream did not perform this function naturally then all the people that live in these regions would be out of a home. There are many functions apparent in nature if you just take the time to look for them. They are automatic in some cases in others; it requires certain creatures to maintain the balance.

Aristotle claims that the function of man is to be rationional; this is what makes a man good. The accepted way a proving this by showing that our parts have a function so we must have one since our parts do. The argument that seems weak states that since a carpenter or tanner has a defined function so must the man that does the carpentry or tanning. There is no dispute that carpentry and tanning have a function that is their own, but does that mean since someone is doing that function they have a function themselves. I happen to believe that it does for two reasons. The first is easy enough to state and explain. Aristotle says that the function of man is to be rationional, well the activity of carpentry and tanning requires a certain amount of rational thought doesn’t it? When a carpenter goes to plan out a new chair style or chest style is must first sit down and rationally think out how it will look and be built. The design does not just come to him by accident or happenstance. The advance and working of carpentry and tanning require a person that possesses rationional thought to practice. So from my point of view you cannot have one without the other.

Some could say that the act of carpentry or tannery can be separated from the carpenter or tanner. I don’t believe that this is possible, for if you ask any man who has spent his life doing something he will tell you that what he does is as much a part of him as the air he breaths. Aristotle states that to live a life of rationality means living a life of happiness. Well, another great man, Ben Franklin, once said “It is the working man who is the happy man. It is the idle man who is the miserable man.”(www.brainyqoutes.com) I don’t see how one can say that a man who does carpentry or tannery is not a working man. By using this quote as a basis of an argument, for a man to be happy he must work. To work he must do a craft. Since rational thought is happiness, then working is rational thought played out. The function of carpentry and tannery is then based upon the function of the man, not the other way around.

There are some distinct difference between the final cause and the function argument that you can use the separately. The final cause states that there is some end the drive all action. The action of kicking the table is to get to the end which is kicking the table. It requires to some extent a desire or ambition to get to a certain end. This can easily be seen in the actions of humans and even in some animals. It gets fishy when it is applied to nature. Saying that there is a desire for the grass to grow, that it wishes to grow into a fully grown stalk, can open the door to a lot of superstition. Thought like these could have been the reason why the Native American Indians worshipped nature’s spirits. Many other cultures can see the same idea in their religion or faith.

Function has a definition that is different than a cause though. A function helps or creates an end, but is not depended on the end. I can create robot with a hammer arm, with the clear function of hammering an object. The end object does not matter to the robot because its only has the function of hammering. A river, given enough time, can create a new grand canyon with the current of its waters. The end of the river is not to do this, but its function makes it so. I see a function as a reason why something does something, not every function needs an end for it to happen. A function does not desire or have ambition to do its duty it just does it, because of this you can see the line the separates the final cause and the function argument.

I started this paper with the desire to make a line that would separate Aristotle’s function argument and his final cause. I looked at nature and it inabilities to see what there function is in the overall picture. I looked at the working man and saw how his work is what defines him and vice versa. Finally I looked at my idea of what a cause and a function is and how they can be seen as separate things. I can see how the scientifically community can throughout the final cause, to a certain extent. Yet, I personally can see a difference between Aristotle’s arguments and with the paper I hope you can too.

Work Cited

1. Book: “Complete Works of Aristotle” Edited: Jonathan Barnes. Princeton University Press, 1995.
2. Website: Coleoptera.org, Article: What is a beetle?
3. Website: Brainy Quotes, Benjamin Franklin Quotes.
4. Website: A Natural History of Extrafloral Nectar-Collecting Ants in the Sonoran Desert Rice University. < http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~bws/efns.html >

The key to any advanced prototypes using Blend 3 w/ Skecthflow is using the SketchFlow Animation Panel, the more advanced States panel, or by adding common interactive behavior to controls. Now, if you happen to have any Flash background, setting up animations will feel very comfortable for you. Below are my thoughts on how to set up some of the behavior that is exhibited by another Silverlight Prototype I put together. (Please explore the prototype to see how feedback and annotations work.)

Creating an Accordion Navigation

The image shown above was the base state of the accordion navigation I built. All of the screen elements presented are drawn rectangles rather than any control that comes along with inherited behavior. The base state is the foundation for any animation a designer wishes to built to mimic interactive behavior. From this starting state, a designer can create iterations of the screen and tie the various states together. What happens when switching between the various states is completely taken care of by Blend, very much like the tween functionality in Flash. Below are screen shots of the two other states I created, and the States panel. Notice one of the defined states returns the accordion to the base state, I am unsure if this is necessary but it worked for me.

The SketchFlow Animation Panel works exactly that same way as states, but only allows for a single animation flow. If it’s desired that the interactive aspects of the prototype be conditional, it’s required to use the States aspect of Blend.

Rollover Effects

Providing a rollover effect is a common need for prototypes. The SketchFlow Animation Panel is perfect for exhibiting this type of behavior. On the ‘Countries’ page, the sketched picture circles can be navigated by rolling over the right arrow. Here is a look at the SketchFlow Animation Panel that allows for this type of behavior.

Drag and Drop

Adding the Drag and Drop behavior is as simple as adding a property to a control. With this property added, it’s possible to place the control anywhere on the screen. Blend adds the proper code necessary, behind the scenes, so a designer can concern themselves with exploring the behavior rather than programming it. As you can see from the screenshot, there are many behaviors available that can be added to any control.

Blend is a powerful prototyping tool given that you find yourself in a WPF/Silverlight development environment. It provides the same benefits that many other prototyping tools have for other development environments. So which tool should a designer use? It depends. It all depends on the type of environment you find yourself in and personal preference. Hope you have enjoyed my exploration of Blend and if you find yourself using it one day please share your experiences.

My first introduction to Blend wasn’t a pleasant one, so bad that when Blend2 came out I promptly ignored it. However, while attending the Day of .Net Conference I sat in on a demo of Blend 3 with Sketchflow. It was impressive to see the improvement that has been made in the Blend, and with the addition of Sketchflow.  To dive deep into the capabilities of Blend, I downloaded the trial version and set out to create a prototype for a future design of this blog (and do some R&D for how to use this on my project team). Below are some thoughts I had while cranking out this concept.

Pros:

Powerful Mapping Module - Flow maps and site maps are key to any design process. Using the SketchFlow Map module, a designer can make either of these very quickly. Blend 3 takes these models a step further by breaking them up into two types. A Screen represents a unique page in the design, allowing for a detailed set up of the overall structure of the site or application. Components are aspects of a page that can be used on many screens throughout the design. The SketchFlow Map module allows for connections to be made between the various screens and components in order to properly showcase the relationships that are involved. The various Screen and Components nodes can be customized via coloring coding in order to convey some deep meaning. In my example, blue nodes are main pages, green nodes sub-pages, red nodes navigation components, yellow nodes UI components, and orange nodes form components.

Components - Creating components that represent shared aspects of the overall user interface is a huge boon. Only having to create a form that is used on half a dozen pages only once not only saves design time, but also removes a lot of repetition in our work. Other applications have a similar concept by the use of master pages, or template, but the downside of these overall frameworks is when only certain aspects of the framework need to be used.

Low-Fi Look and Feel - The name SketchFlow really holds true with the overall style that is applied to produced prototypes. Though it is obvious that they were created with the aid of some program, the prototypes look down and dirty enough to really get the message across that this is just a concept. Though I haven’t tried it yet, during the demo of Blend3 it was stated that user defined controls can be created and the sketch style applied to them in order to maintain the low-fi look.

Behavior Set Up - A prototype isn’t really a prototype unless it has some level of interactivity. Setting up a simple click thru is as simple as can be. Through the use of the animation module, some pretty slick behavior is possible to set up without needing to get into the code. But, if you happen to have some basic skills in C# or VB.net, it’s possible to add some pretty complex behavior as well.

UI Control Library - The library of controls that comes included in the SketchFlow style covers just about any standard control you can think of. Included with all the standard controls are simple shapes that may need to be used for a variety of reasons. When prototyping is complete, and approved, a developer can simply remove the Sketch styling and all controls revert to standard Windows styling and are ready to be hooked up. (In theory)

Adobe Import - Blend has the ability to import any layered file from either Illustrator or Photoshop.  Each layer gets inserted into the Blend project as a user control, which upon import is just an image. Once imported though, you can tell Blend that this image of a text box is an actual text box, and poof it’s a text box and all the styling from the image is retained. The has great benefits for the interaction designers, visual designers, and user interface developers that work closely together.

Animation - Todd Zaki Warfel has a great quote regarding prototyping, ‘If you can’t make it, fake it.’ The animation capabilities in Blend3 allow you to fake just about anything, depending on your animation skills and maybe some C# or VB.net knowledge.

Right Click - Inside the Blend3 environment, right clicking is really your best friend. The majority of the settings and commonly used functions are available via this little context menu. This is also the main method for which to set up any type of click-thru behavior you want presented in the prototype. Denny Payton, who gave the Blend3 Demo, made that comment ‘If you are not sure how to do something in Blend3, just right click.’

Annotation Feedback - Any prototype created in Blend3 can be packaged as either a Silverlight application, or a WPF application, and shared among the project team, stakeholders, or used for some user testing. The method of annotation is great, as people can grab a virtual pen or highlighter and mark directly on the prototype, these annotations are stored with the actual project for review later. A message box is also available for more detailed feedback and all is captured in the project files for reviewing later.

Test Data - Lorem Ipsum only gets you so far when adding content to a prototype. Plugging in real world sample data can be done in a variety of ways. If you happen to have a functional test database, tables from the database can be bound to any control. Something that was removed in Blend2, but added back in Blend3, is the ability to bind to an external XML file. The real gem of Blend3′s test data capabilities is creating some on the fly, and storing it locally to the project. This way drop downs and list controls don’t have to be empty and the data inside them isn’t hard coded.

Cons:

Buggy - During the course of creating my prototype the application bombed out twice. Now, some might say crashing only twice doesn’t sound that bad, but any crash is bad in my eyes. At first, when creating the sitemap, somehow two of the nodes had become linked together. Moving the most recent one would also move the last selected, the solution came during one of the crashes when the behavior went away when I reloaded Blend. Though the layout of the framework is pixel perfect between the various screens, some UI controls still jump around in the produced prototype. For someone who is a perfectionist in this regard, it drove me batty!

Interaction Design of Blend3 - For some reason, someone thought that the most common use of the scroll wheel is to zoom in and out of the both the Design module and the SketchFlow Map module. Eventually, I found the setting that allows you to rebind what the standard behavior is for the scroll wheel and my frustration eased. The only way to remove a node or connection in the map module is by right clicking and choosing remove from the menu. The delete key is completely ignored from this aspect of the UI. This caused many mental ‘WTF?’ moments.

Structuring Site Map - While the SketchFlow Map module provides great value for visualizing the structure and flow of a site, it’s easy to create a very complex and confusing map for something more than a simple site map. It becomes difficult to follow the connection lines with the crisscrossing of each other, or placing component nodes in a meaningful location when they are shared by many screens. Hopefully, in future versions this module gets a bit more flushed out.

Component Placement - Creating common aspects of the user interfaces once, but using them in many places, is a great advantage for any designer. But, the component has to be placed individually on each screen it’s linked to. This can make the prototype look clunky since the same component might jump around as the prototype is traversed if not placed exactly right. This could be easily fixed if the background size of each component was the same as the overall size of the interface. When linked to a screen, the component gets  automatically placed in the proper place.

Screen vs Artboard Size - There is a huge disconnect between the size of the screen and the artboard that contains the UI controls. Now, I understand this disconnect is in place for detailed animations, but it would relieve some confusion when creating just a simple interface with no animation if the sizes were tied together. For the prototype that I created, it wasn’t until I ran the project that it became apparent that the screen size did not match the interface I had created.

Grid System - Though Blend3 has an underlying grid system you can use to place controls, it isn’t possible to create grid lines on the fly that are shared across different screens. This was the other reason why when the prototype was ran, the screen components would jump around on me. It’s possible to customize the underlying grid system, but it is application wide rather than limited to just the project.

Adobe Import Limitations - The way Blend3 imports the files from Illustrator or Photoshop put a huge burden on the designer working in those applications. The layers need to be set up so each UI control has it’s own layer and the layers are organized in a detailed manner. Now, having organized layers in either Photoshop or Illustrator is the ‘right’ thing to do, but sometimes time just doesn’t allow for it. It’s a good step in the right direction, but still needs a bit of work.

Word Export - Axure is hands down the best when it comes to turning a prototype into spec, Blend3 is taking it’s best stab at it too. The downside being that the produced document is very flat and only creates the images of the user interface. It can be argued that any spec is better than none, but there’s some good information you can attach to controls when they are being placed that don’t get exported into the document. Again, good first step and it will be interesting to see how this feature gets flushed out in the future.

Annotations Limitations - While being able to annotate directly on the prototype is great for gathering feedback, but in Blend3 it’s limited. Annotations are not store per instance of the prototype, but shared across different uses. This pretty much limits prototype review to internal teams and maybe key stakeholders. Allowing the annotations to be shared while performing user testing raising the risk for bias and invalid results. This seems like a simple enhancement to this features, and hopefully become available one day.

Media Sketch Controls - Though the control library available in the SketchFlow part of Blend3 provides almost any ui control you would need, it is missing a few. Generic placement boxes for media, like pictures or videos, are missing. Requiring the designer to use the generic shapes and text to put in placeholders. Granted, you could create a user control to fulfill this need, but it would be nice for generic media controls to be available out of the box.

Repackging Prototype – One of the promoted benefits of using Blend is to create a prototype or interface that could be used in either a WPF or Silverlight application. Sadly, it isn’t possible to just repackage a project into one of these formats when using SketchFlow. So, if you create a kickass prototype in WPF and want to host it as a Silverlight app in order to get some feedback, sorry that’s just not possible. (Like I wanted to do!)

Overall Thoughts

Seriously, kudos to the designers and developers at Microsoft for getting Blend to such a state that you can do create some kick ass prototypes. Though it has some flaws, like any piece of software will, it provides some great benefits for designers. The value could really be seen for any designer working in a Microsoft development environment, creating Silverlight apps or Desktop apps using WPF. The need for other prototyping tools like Fireworks or Axure that don’t necessary provide good output for developers in this type of environment could be replaced by using Blend3 with Sketchflow. I’m not saying one tool is better than another, but when you take into account the environment the project is being developed in, one tool may be more beneficial than another.

Images from the prototype I created

Ghost in the Pixel is one of my favorite Interaction Design blogs. Last May, Uday Gajendar posted some insightful questions to guide young designers on the path they want to take professionally. I found this helpful in allowing me to better define the type of designer I want to be when I grow up. Below are my answers.

What kind of Questions intrigue you?
When I start out trying to solve a new design problem, my mindset is normally around what does a person need to do in order to accomplish their task? What kind of tools can I put into their hands that make their job/life easier and more fulfilling? One of the aspects that make us all human is our ability to create and use tools. It is my responsibility as a designer to create the tools in such a manner that the person it was meant for can easily pick it up and run with it.

The process of designing new tools easily leads to exploring new and exciting ways of doing something. It is common to assume that you can never be 100% sure how a person is going to use a product. During the design process, I want to explore the ‘what ifs’ to see if there is any missed opportunities or something completely unexpected. You never know how far the rabbit hole can lead you sometimes.

What kind of Problems and Domains excite you?
I love helping small businesses solve their problems. Normally, they don’t have the resources or money to hire a designer, even though they sorely need one. They are experts when it comes to the products and services they provide, but when it comes to branding, user experience, and web presence it’s unchartered territory for them.

My other interests make me out to be a masochist. The constraints the come along with working in heavily regulated industries or in the education field fascinate me. If you can create something revolutionary with so many factors working against you, then there is nothing keeping you from being a rock star. The challenge of it all just draws me in, regardless of the emotional and mental stressors that are abound to occur.

As if I haven’t stretched my interests out enough, the way people use products inspire much of my daily voyeurism. Watching someone struggle with something gets the gears turning and starts me thinking how it could have been improved and why certain decisions were made about the products design. Many times I start to curse the ‘designer’ for either missing something obvious, or just being lazy.

What kind of Artifacts do you like to work on?
There is a special place in my heart for prototyping and wireframing. I constantly try to learn about new methods of creation, or tools to use. The earlier a design can be looked at, played with, or tested helps get to a better design. My process always starts with either a piece of paper or my moleskin where I can do a complete brain dump of all the possible ways to solve the problem I am tackling. Once I am happy with a sketch, or series of sketches, it is off to whatever prototyping tool I have handy. (Recently it has been Fireworks.)

Though I love doing prototypes, wireframes, and sketches, it is hard for me to do them effectively without some visual documentation to guide me. Getting a clear understanding of the domain though site maps, flow diagrams, and user task flows help me understand all the minor nuances which spark the creativity needed to get to the actual design. I would be lost without these tools and sometimes find myself in a very Zen state while creating them.

What Activities and Phases do you prefer and excel at?
I got started in the user experience business mainly doing user research and traditional usability studies. Though I have moved on to being a designer, I still remember my roots and find great value in the lessons I learned. Every time I sit down with a new group of people to learn how and why they their thing, I learn something new. I learn about their behavior and expectations, but more importantly I learn something about myself. This leads to so many great design insights that it still amazes me that some companies don’t see the value in it.

The natural next steps from doing all the good ole fashioned user research and analysis is coming up with the conceptual design. This phase normally eats up huge chunks of my moleskine and is by far the most fun. It naturally feeds into the designs I ultimately create and gives me the background to effectively defend my designs.

What Purposes motivate you as a designer?
This question is the easiest to answer for me, improve the human condition. Granted this is a fairly broad goal, but a total worthwhile one. As a designer, I strive to help people with the problems that they have. Another aspect is getting out and helping others in the design community. It is selfish for me to learn all these great things about people, methods of solving possible common problems, and not share that knowledge with others. Since so much about user experience is either self-taught or learn as you go, it is important for me to give back to the community that has helped me grow and learn.

The other aspect of being a designer that motivates me is to try and make the world a bit more playful. Recent devices like the iPhone, Wii, or the proposed Project Natal showcases how much meaning an interaction can have if there is a sense of playfulness to it. Interactions don’t HAVE to be boring. Yes, it may take a little extra time and money to make it playful, but the resulting experience makes it worth the cost.

So that is the type of designer that I am, or hope to become. The real challenge is finding a place in the world where I can do all of this, and also evolve into maybe something different 5 years down the road. Regardless, I have some boundaries I can work within and bring meaning to my career. What are your answers to these questions? Either post them below or put them up on your own blog. Think of it as your own little manifesto as a design.

photo credit: A-dit-ya

How to Create A Style Guide With Ease – Great tips on how to great a style guide that is both thorough and understandable.

Oldie but goodie: When I’m asked to design a bridge … – Dave Malouf offers some great starter points for attempting the Mozilla Design Challenge.

The Life Cycle of a Wireframe -Nick Finck gives us some insight of on all the stages wireframing can take, in all its glory.

10 Signs of a User Focused Design -  If you are in the business of User Experience, this is a handy check list to keep you honest.

30 Essential PDF Documents Every Designer Should Download – Just another hammer(s) for your toolbox.

Wireframe Websites That Wow – I have completely fallen for wireframes. This post highlights some of the best sites out there to help yourself keep on top of them.

Selling What We Do – UX is hard to sell, hands down. This post gives some good pointers that makes it a tad bit easier though.

Metaphor On The Brain – Why are metaphors important? Read Dave Malouf discuss the history of them and why they are not going anywhere any time soon.

Social Engagement Spectrum – David Armano shows us the what the marketing world of tomorrow will have to pay attention too in order to succeed.

How To Listen – Anyone who has done an interview with end users knows how hard it is to really actively listen. This posts gives great tips and tricks to get the most out of your time with users.

Real Or Imaginary. The Effectiveness of Using Personas In Product Design – Occasionally, I cheat on my wireframes with Personas. Their usefullness has always been a point of contentation, and this article tries to clean the water up a bit.

Twitter’s Most Moronic Change: Removing @ Reply Settings – Twitter community outrage on recent change to their @ Reply system.

About Challenges and Authentic Experiences: An Interview with Bill DeRouchey – Great interview looking at the history of Interaction Design, and where the profession is going. At the end of the interview is a nice piece of advice for young UX Designers.

How to Elevate Your Website Design Process and Results - Very smart and thorough tutorial on how to streamline creating a design for a website using Photoshop.

Usability Bytes #1: Visual prominence – First screencast of Usability Bytes presented by Robert Hoekman, Jr of Miskeeto.

Web Do’s and Don’ts - Great resource for patterns and anti-patterns.

You Are Not A Designer If – It would be very interesting to see a follow up to this called ‘You Are A Designer If’.

Boxes and Arrows Interactions 09 Recap -  Whitney Hess summarizes all the craziness that occurred at this years Interactions 09 conference.

Who Watches The Watchman? – Article on how old Interaction Designer truly is.

The Future of Wireframes – General history of Wireframes over the past 10 years, how they were used, how their use has changed, and how they might be used in the future.

There seems to be two schools of thought in the IxDA community regarding how a design should influence a user behavior. On one side there are designers who simply try to support existing behavior patterns, on the other hand designers attempt to directly influence a users behavior pattern. Some argue that it is unethical to directly try to influence, or change, a users behavior without them knowing it. In my opinion, if you are not causing the user undue harm by modifying their behavior, it is fair game.

From a global point of view, both schools of thought end up doing the same thing. If a designer is simply supporting existing behavior, they are influencing the user to keep doing the same old thing. A designer who looks to directly effect the behavior of a user can drive innovation for new products, services, and methods. They don’t get caught up in what the user does today, but what they might do tomorrow.

Do you think there is an ethical issue here? If we can’t design new ways of doing things, does this stifle innovation? What camp do you fall in?

Personas are one of my favorite tools in the user experience tackle box. They can be used to drive the design of a project from start to finish, and also answer many pesky design problems. Adrienne Massanari (blog) pointed out another use for them at this years IA Summit in Memphis, political leverage. The following are my tweets from the session:

As she was working on a work flow diagram it occurred to her that she didn’t have a clue who the users were.

We are going to look at using Personas to tackle political issues inside an organization.

Discourse is the space in which carious objects emerge and are continuously transformed.

Discourse is powerful stuff, just as powerful as a language.

“Users are not monolithic or straight forward, but are complex and fragmented in nature..”

Theme 1: the ‘stupid user’ is a concept that is going away. Anyone who has done a usability test has felt this way though.

Not everyone wants to be a power user, and it makes sense to hide some advanced features to support the common user.

Theme 2: Users as victims of bad design. Nelson is seen as encouraging the view that users are simply victims.

If the user is a victim, then the designers can be viewed as teh heroes that swoop in to safe them.

Theme 3: Users as the co-designers. This is seen a lot in participatory design and users are seen as part of the overall system.

Personas and politics: Users are not good partners for coming up with design, better to have pretend users and design for them.

Good ole Eagle-Eye Edward from Cisco. He was a good desk topper for over a year at my old company.

Dan Saffer (@odannyboy) states that half of the personas that are out there are made up, and mostly just imaginary friends.

Personas are boundary objects, they encompass complex IA concept into a story.

PM’s and analysts can use personas as political leverage inside of their own organization.

IA/UCD uses users are resources to be mined, we flatten the difference between different people.

IA/UCD can also undervalue the users hands on knowledge and considers themselves the expert rather than the user.

IA/UCD already use users in the form of personas as political tools in their organization.

With personas we need to make sure we don’t mistake the map for the territory.

It is difficult for designers to be heroes because there is no tyrant to overthrow, no dragon to slay…

We can’t simply “understand users and then ignore them” — Robert Hoekman

The information Adrienne gave us did an excellent job of pointing out something that has always been there, but no one ever noticed. By showing us the variety of ways an organization can use a persona, it gives more strength to the agrument on why projects should take them time to develop them. It also adds another line of seperation between personas and market segments, though some can argue that market segments are used in the same manner.

Personas and politics: The discursive construction of the “user” in Information Architecture – IA Summit 2009

View more presentations from tankgrrl.