I’m inclined to take a few notes on Eric Bailey’s grand post about the use of inclusive personas in user research. As someone who has been in roles that have both used and created user personas, there’s so much in here
What’s the big deal, right? We’re often taught and encouraged to think about users early in the design process. It’s user’ centric design, so let’s personify 3-4 of the people we think represent our target audiences so our work is aligned with their objectives and needs. My master’s program was big on that and went deep into different approaches, strategies, and templates for documenting that research.
And, yes, it is research. The idea, in theory, is that by understanding the motivations and needs of specific users (gosh, isn’t “users” an awkward term?), we can “design backwards” so that the end goal is aligned to actions that get them there.
Eric sees holes in that process, particularly when it comes to research centered around inclusiveness. Why is that? Very good reasons that I’m compiling here so I can reference it later. There’s a lot to take in, so you’d do yourself a solid by reading Eric’s post in full. Your takeaways may be different than mine.
Traditional vs. Inclusive user research
First off, I love how Eric distinguishes what we typically refer to as the general type of user personas, like the ones I made to generalize an audience, from inclusive user personas that are based on individual experiences.
Inclusive user research practices are different than a lot of traditional user research. While there is some high-level overlap in approach, know the majority of inclusive user research is more focused on the individual experience and less about more general trends of behavior.
So, right off the bat we have to reframe what we’re talking about. There’s blanket personas that are placeholders for abstracting what we think we know about specific groups of people versus individual people that represent specific experiences that impact usability and access to content.
A primary goal in inclusive user research is often to identify concrete barriers that prevent someone from accessing the content they want or need. While the techniques people use are varied, these barriers represent insurmountable obstacles that stymie a whole host of navigation techniques and approaches.
If you’re looking for patterns, trends, and customer insights, know that what you want is regular user testing. Here, know that the same motivating factors you’re looking to uncover also exist for disabled people. This is because they’re also, you know, people.
Assistive technology is not exclusive to disabilities
It’s so easy to assume that using assistive tools automatically means accommodating a disability or impairment, but that’s not always the case. Choice points from Eric:
- First is that assistive technology is a means, and not an end.
- Some disabled people use more than one form of assistive technology, both concurrently and switching them in and out as needed.
- Some disabled people don’t use assistive technology at all.
- Not everyone who uses assistive technology has also mastered it.
- Disproportionate attention placed on one kind of assistive technology at the expense of others.
- It’s entirely possible to have a solution that is technically compliant, yet unintuitive or near-impossible to use in the actual.
I like to keep in mind that assistive technologies are for everyone. I often think about examples in the physical world where everyone benefits from an accessibility enhancement, such as cutting curbs in sidewalks (great for skateboarders!), taking elevators (you don’t have to climb stairs in some cases), and using TV subtitles (I often have to keep the volume low for sleeping kids).
That’s the inclusive part of this. Everyone benefits rather than a specific subset of people.
Different personas, different priorities
What happens when inclusive research is documented separately from general user research?
Another folly of inclusive personas is that they’re decoupled from regular personas. This means they’re easily dismissible as considerations.
[…]
Disability is diversity, and the plain and honest truth is that diversity is missing from your personas if disability conditions are not present in at least some of them. This, in turn, means your personas are misrepresentative of the people in the abstract you claim to serve.
In practice, that means:
[…] we also want to hold space for things that need direct accessibility support and remediation when this consideration of accessibility fails to happen. It’s all about approach.
An example of how to consider your approach is when adding drag and drop support to an experience. […] [W]e want to identify if drag and drop is even needed to achieve the outcome the organization needs.
Thinking of a slick new feature that will impress your users? Great! Let’s make sure it doesn’t step on the toes of other experiences in the process, because that’s antithetical to inclusiveness. I recognize this temptation in my own work, particularly if I land on a novel UI pattern that excites me. The excitement and tickle I get from a “clever” idea gives me a blind side to evaluating the overall effectiveness of it.
Radical participatory design
Gosh dang, why didn’t my schoolwork ever cover this! I had to spend a little time reading the Cambridge University Press article explaining radical participatopry design (RPD) that Eric linked up.
Therefore, we introduce the term RPD to differentiate and represent a type of PD that is participatory to the root or core: full inclusion as equal and full members of the research and design team. Unlike other uses of the term PD, RPD is not merely interaction, a method, a way of doing a method, nor a methodology. It is a meta-methodology, or a way of doing a methodology.
Ah, a method for methodology! We’re talking about not only including community members into the internal design process, but make them equal stakeholders as well. They get the power to make decisions, something the article’s author describes as a form of decolonization.
Or, as Eric nicely describes it:
Existing power structures are flattened and more evenly distributed with this approach.
Bonus points for surfacing the model minority theory:
The term “model minority” describes a minority group that society regards as high-performing and successful, especially when compared to other groups. The narrative paints Asian American children as high-achieving prodigies, with fathers who practice medicine, science, or law and fierce mothers who force them to work harder than their classmates and hold them to standards of perfection.
It introduces exclusiveness in the quest to pursue inclusiveness — a stereotype within a stereotype.
Thinking bigger
Eric caps things off with a great compilation of actionable takeaways for avoiding the pitfalls of inclusive user personas:
- Letting go of control leads to better outcomes.
- Member checking: letting participants review, comment on, and correct the content you’ve created based on their input.
- Take time to scrutinize the functions of our roles and how our organizations compel us to undertake them in order to be successful within them.
- Organizations can turn inwards and consider the artifacts their existing design and research processes produce. They can then identify opportunities for participants to provide additional clarity and corrections along the way.
On inclusive personas and inclusive user research originally published on CSS-Tricks, which is part of the DigitalOcean family. You should get the newsletter.