I really like it, especially if you incorporate the feedback that
everyone has given. I don't have much to add that hasn't already
been said, but I am curious about what you're using to create the
survey. Flash? Something else?
Mike
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> I think you make a mistake in assuming that creating
> the persona is an extra step in the research process
> that could be eliminated - i.e. the persona itself has no
> value, it is the research behind it that's really useful.
I wasn't assuming that, though, Eva. Rather, it seems to me that
Ok, this information has been helpful. What Elizabeth and Steve say
about the statistical methods (clustering, etc.) behind persona
creation makes sense, and that kind of analysis is something that I
already do.
The problem is that I've never witnessed nor heard of personas being
created in such
> Creating stereotypes and aggregates is useful in
> many endeavors.
Some endeavors. But if decisions are being based on a stereotype of
something that doesn't actually exist -- an aggregate in which bits
and pieces represent characteristics of different users, but in which
the whole represents no
> Personas are a classic example of a method that is "valid" in
Martin's terms.
That's an interesting article, but I must admit it has me confused
as to whether personas would be an attempt at validity or
reliability. I see personas as an attempt to represent a product's
users, the goal being to r
