Reflections on User Research Smoke & Mirrors

Design has always been a really subjective matter. How everyone perceives a particular design is different; their perceptions are moulded by their own experiences, probably also affected by their cultural background. No one can really say FOR SURE, that a design is perfect - that everyone will DEFINITELY love it. In the world of design, i guess there is no 100%.

In this article, Fahey (the author) raises the issue on the attempts at the scientific quantification on user experience, and describes this as pseudo-science. Now that the world we live in is so technologically advanced, new tools and gadgets are the rage. For most of the tasks that we try to do, there will be some tool that we can use to help us. And this brings us to the 2nd part of the article, where he talks about eyetrackers.


I have never known of such a device - one that can tell you what people are looking at, and help improve the design of the website. Personally, i think it is quite a ridiculous device. Humans have their own opinions on matters like this, why do we even need a device to help us decide?


Like what Fahey mentioned, (and i agree) results from an eyetracking study are not surprising to a good designer. Why? Because with good design instincts, and of course experience, designers are able to determine and solve the problems in a design, without help from scientific devices. However, results from such studies are not necessarily useless. Although such results are not definitive measurements of a design's efficiency, it is still information that a designer with good instincts and experience can use adequately.


But of course, not everyone has good design instincts, and everyone's preferences differ. In the business world, where everything is about numbers, statistics and scientific research, it would be rather difficult to impose such opinions without 'evidence' that it is a good opinion, that will benefit the company.


I felt that part 3 of this article was quite insightful. Despite knowing that there're problems with the design, and that there is some way to solve the problems, designers often find it difficult to convince their clients/bosses to revamp and adopt a new idea. In this case, scientific research helps in getting the job done. The statistics serve as a reassurance to the clients, and also acts as a further push to prove to the client that the new design would work; the results from user research helps to explain and justify good design decisions to people without deep design skills or instincts.


Part 4 of the article was rather interesting as Fahey brings up the issue about the 'Persona Rooms'. I thought the Persona Rooms were rather interesting, although albeit excessive. No matter how much a designer tries to imitate someone else's life, the designer is still himself. There is no way that he could live and think like his persona. For a start, all the experiences he had will definitely not be 100% same as his persona's past experiences. The designer himself is already moulded to be who he is, his cultural background would lead him to have preferences over different values, his life experiences etc. He just will not be able to be the real 'Bob' or 'Mary' that his persona is.


Personally, i think it would be better if the designer found someone who is like his persona, and then get more information from that person.


Last but not least, i liked the fact that Fahey used an example of a novelist doing research for her characters to bring out the impact and value of non-scientific researches. Although the research gives her plenty of information, the novel is still based on the novelist's imaginations and opinions. This is much like the way a designer works - to create a work that he/she thinks is the most appropriate from the results of research.