Reflections on User Research Smoke & Mirrors, Part 5: Non-Scientific User Research isn’t a Bad Thing

22Apr08

Article

This article is mighty interesting. In fact the entire series is interesting, and I would recommend a quick read around them.

I find it amusing in the world of user research and experience design that it seems through the article, researchers seem to believe that lending some amount of scientific credence to their research would somehow make the research good. The whole series was dealing with the absurdity of some of the quantitative sort of research methodologies used. As i went through the series, i began to understand a little better the questions that I’ve had concerning some of the user research methodologies learnt. It is hard to quantify something that is in essence qualitative. An experience, to say the least, is hard to write down in facts. I often find myself pondering the question if I really could measure the success of a product(the experience it builds for the user) through a survey form with various statistics.

In an area like crafting an experience, many a times the most “unscientific” of methods offer useful research in developing product experience. I think scientific methods are over-rated. Science always works on replicable phenomena. Because science is based on fundamental physical rules, phenomena observed should in theory be replicable anywhere, anytime. If user-research methodologies can offer such garantees of success in its methods, that would appeal to many. The pursuit of a quick-fix through replicating formulas of success is what I believe really belies the mindsets behind user researcher’s who claim “scientific”.

Unfortunately, in user research, we deal with a fickle-minded subject – The Human Being. Shaped by different experiences, different character traits, different cultures, different mindsets and paradigms, different emotions, and the list goes on. The human being is subjective. No 2 human beings are ever exactly alike. Even twins differ in character and many a times preferences. It will be hard pressed to find methodologies that express a common denominator when there isn’t.

I really liked what Zeldman said, that the user is never wrong. Not even when you have done everything you possibly could to help him understand and he still doesn’t. We just have to admit it isn’t perfect science here. In fact, I am compelled to believe that we should appreciate its subjectivity and research methods that reflect the subjective nature are also in greater alignment. The user research that genuinely helps designers develop products that crafts experiences in themselves need to be immersed and reflective of that qualitative experience.

Unscientific tools like user personas, while unscientific, fits very well into helping designers to visualise the product and its users. To design a product with the end in mind. Increasingly product design needs to appeal not only to functionality but also towards the minds of the user. Products today are much more sophisticated. It no longer is sufficient to design products that “do” something. Products need to give users an experience. The functionality is part of the user experience. It isn’t just enough for a lamp to give light anymore, it is more important how I feel having it around and how i feel using it. Now that’s subjective… entirely. What I think is most interesting about such subjectivity is that opinions can also change.

But to put things a little into perspective. I think it is important to know how and why people respond to things created but quantitative numbers are also important facts to help you arrive at possible interpretation and deduction of these data.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment