Design with confidence, by knowing your users

I have had several discussions lately with colleagues around design processes. I personally think that the best process is a flexible one, with standard phases that can have various “tactics” and effort that can be applied, depending upon the complexity and timelines of the project. Some of my colleagues disagree, and they can’t even agree to what they disagree with. One person thinks a design process should be standardized no matter what the project, and the other thinks that you should not even have phases at all – that the design process should be “organic” and change as things are found out.

There is one thing we all agree on: the importance of user research as a foundation to design… Though we again disagree on the methods to use to gain such understanding. I’ve written about design confidence before, and I’ve decided the best way that you can have confidence in the work is to know you have done your due diligence and research about your users and what they need.

So, how do you do this? The direct answer is know who you are designing for and talk to people like them. If you’re not comfortable with interviewing people, take it slow… ask a colleague with more experience to do it and sit in to take notes. Then, as you get more experience, run the interview yourself.

Analyze the interviews to look for patterns. Include any legacy research that was done in this analysis. The key is to invest the time to gain the proper level of understanding and empathy. If you use personas and user stories in your process, then create them as reference material. But the key is to do the due dilligence to make sure such artifacts are well rounded and true, not just “imaginary friends” or works of fiction.

How much time should you invest? As much time as you can, and I’ve personally followed the “are my eyes about to fall out their sockets?” criteria. If they are, and I know these users as well as my closest friends and relatives, then I can go to the next step and design with confidence.

Comments are closed.