Short Talks:

Talk: Understanding
Specialized Section
the Context of Use CHI 2003: NEW HORIZONS

Persona Development for Information-rich Domains

Rashmi Sinha
Uzanto Analytics & Design
6486 Benvenue Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
[email protected]

ABSTRACT Study of Individual Differences: Cognitive psychology is

Designing information architecture for complex websites characterized by usage of experimental techniques, and the
requires understanding user information needs and mental study of average behavior, while the study of individual
models in that domain. Personas, or user archetypes, differences is characterized by a correlational approach, and
created for such domains should also reflect types of multivariate statistics. Dillon & Watson (1996) point out
information needs, and usage of information set. We have that HCI has been influenced by experimental psychology
created a statistical technique to identify important but less by individual differences psychology that offers
underlying groupings of information needs. In a preliminary many lessons for understanding users, including the factor-
study, we show how designers can use this information in analytic techniques used in the present study.
conjunction with data from interviews and observations to Personas in Information-rich domains
generate and refine personas. Understanding user information needs and mental models is
Keywords important for design in information-rich domains.
Personas, information architecture, design, user profiles Information architects use card-sorting and other methods
to understand user mental models for better design. We
INTRODUCTION
propose that personas for such domains should be similarly
Personas, or user archetypes, an increasingly popular
informed by user information needs. The cast of personas
design technique, are used to personify important user
chosen should reflect the types of information needs.
characteristics for product design and marketing. User
profiles have a long history in marketing (Moore 1991), Goals of Study
while Cooper (1999) heralded the use of personas in product Current persona development processes emphasize
design. Personas help define the product by replacing the precision (building detailed descriptions), but not accuracy
abstract, elastic user with the vibrant presence of a specific (identifying representative users). The designer makes a
user who becomes a part of the design process. Cooper subjective judgment regarding what user archetypes to
suggests that personas should be loosely based on focus on, a judgment that might be difficult for
interviews and observation, with little emphasis on inexperienced designers. Even for experienced designers,
identifying representative users. In contrast, Grudin & Pruitt personas based on the same user research might vary
(2002) think that finding representative users is key, and the widely, because there is no tight coupling between user
persona creation process should involve both quantitative research and persona development. Finally, persona
and qualitative information, including market segmentation development relies mostly on interviews and observation,
studies, field studies, focus groups etc. techniques that are useful for gaining deeper insight into a
few users, but are not economical for gaining a broader
Related Research
understanding of target user groups. Our goal is to create a
Market Segmentation: The goal of market segmentation is
tighter coupling between user research and persona
to produce the maximum appeal to target users, while the
development by using quantitative methods to identify
goal of product design is to develop a product that best
types of information needs
meets the needs and goals of users. Market segmentation
often relies on demographic information to classify users. In METHOD
contrast, our goal is to find common types of information Participants and Procedure
needs, guiding our choice of method and statistics. The persona development exercise was undertaken for an
online Bay Area restaurant finder. The project goal was to
allow users to find a restaurant to match their tastes and the
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).
occasion. The first step was a preliminary exploration of the
CHI 2003, April 5–10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
Copyright is held by the author/owner(s). information domain. We identified 32 dimensions of the
CHI
ACM2003, April 5-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA.
1-58113-630-7/03/0004. restaurant experience by surveying other restaurant finders,
ACM 1-58113-637-4/03/0004 and phone interviews with two people.

830
Short Talks:
Talk: Understanding
Specialized Section
the Context of Use CHI 2003: NEW HORIZONS

63 respondents filled out a questionnaire about the personas . Table 2 shows 3 resultant personas. Next, we plan
restaurant experience, including rating 32 dimensions, e.g., to verify and refine the personas by conducting interviews,
"Good wine selection”, “Is child friendly” and "Good for targeting users that could be represented by each of the
quiet conversation", on a five point Likert scale (1=not personas. Computing component scores (from PCA
important; 5=very important). Mean ratings suggested what analysis) for questionnaire will allow us to identify which
dimensions of the experience were more important (food persona a particular respondent best represents.
quality, good service), than others (valet parking, decor),
Table 2: Personas from Factor Loadings in Table 1
but did not provide insight into individual differences.
Romantic, relaxed dining experience… Adam
Identifying the underlying factors (42), a Sales Professional in the Bay Area. He dates
In order to explore individual differences, we used Principal frequently and is always on the lookout for a great
place to take a date to. A satisfying dining experience
Components Analysis (PCA), an exploratory data analysis
(good view, service, wine selection), is more
technique that can reduce the dimensionality of large important than price. (based on Factor 1)
datasets, by identifying important underlying factors.
Buffet-style dining with kids in tow... Susan (32)
Bartlett’s test of spherecity showed that the dimensions has two young children, and regrets not going out
were correlated (so PCA was appropriate) [x2 = 804.03, more often. She likes child-friendly restaurants (menu,
p<.01]. The results (a five-component solution) accounted seating arrangements & atmosphere), and buffet-
for 53% of the variance. Equamax rotation was used to style service, and avoids trendy restaurants that
divide variance equally between the five components. cater to a young crowd. (Based on Factor 2)

Table 1 shows the factor loadings for three components. A Meet for drinks, eat some food too... Lin just got
out of school and is on her first job. She goes out a
component can be regarded as an independent cluster of
few nights a week. Along with friends, she loves to try
needs. Every respondent also has a score for each out new & trendy restaurants. They like places with
component allowing examination of differences between outdoor seating. (based on Factor 3)
people high on different needs.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Table 1: Factor Loadings for 3 factors The information architects were able to successfully create
Factor 1 (10% of variance): Romantic atmosphere, Trendy, personas from the components identified by PCA analysis .
Décor, Wine-Selection, Takes reservation, Special meal options, The personas can now be verified, refined and enriched by
e.g., vegetarian, Well-stocked bar. conducting targeted interviews and observation. The
Factor 2 (10% of variance): Buffet style, Good for groups, No proposed technique enhances the accuracy of the persona
rush in service, Child-friendly, Portion size, Meal options:
creation, while working in a complementary way with other
children’s menu.
qualitative methods. Although the technique uses
Factor 3 (13% of variance): Well-stocked bar, Locations, Good
for people-watching, Credit card accepted, Price, Outdoor specialized statistical methods, the design team retains
seating, Wine Selection ownership of the persona creation process, increasing the
chances of the resultant personas being convincing
Creating the Personas
(Blomquist & Arvola, 02).
Next we gave all this information (the design task, factor
loadings for five components, questionnaire, means etc.) to This is the first effort to develop a technique that provides
two information architects - who had previously created and for a direct link from user research and personas. We are
used personas in the course of design work. A brief also experimenting with other types of data collection and
explanation of factor loadings was provided. The statistical analysis. Currently, we are building a software
information architects were otherwise left free to use the tool to automate the analysis for persona creation. The tool
information as they saw fit. will allow designers to run the analysis themselves.
The information architects reported that their main focus REFERENCES
was the factor loadings, which helped understand primary 1. Blomquist, A & Arvola, M (2002). Personas in Action:
and secondary motivation of the persona, and were used as Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team. NordiCHI.
the core of the personas. But they did not always use all the 2. Cooper, A (1999). The inmates are running the asylum.
factor loadings for a particular persona, using information Macmillan.
that helped formed a coherent picture of a user archetype. 3. Dillon, A & Watson, C (1996). User Analysis in HCI:
Other information such as spending habits, frequency, age, historical lessons from individual differences research.
helped flesh out demographic characteristics of a persona. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45.
Overall, the information architects felt they had enough
4. Grudin, J & Pruitt, J (2002). Personas, participatory
information to start with persona development, but needed
design and product development. PDC 2002.
to do more user research to finish the process.
5. Moore, A. G. (1991). Crossing the chasm. Harper Collins
They created four personas from the five factors, reporting
Publishers, New York.
that two factors were not sufficiently different to be distinct

831