Talk:Persona (user experience)/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Persona (user experience). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cleanup and expansion
Needs source references, ref to the Pruitt & Adlin book (maybe Carroll's book too?), cross references to other articles like Scenario, Use case, Human–computer interaction, etc. --Ronz 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Added and reworded some information at the beginning. I think it makes more sense to discuss personas only as something that occurs during software development process - I'm not aware of uses of personas outside this area. Tried to improve the wording and reduce overly long sentences. --Deb1551 22:21, 21 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Adding some information on the advantages of personas in avoiding three common pitfalls as described by Cooper: The elastic user, self referential design and edge cases.
- Needs work on methodology to develop personas - e.g. breaking up of goals into life, experience and end-goals, mapping these to the interview users etc. --Nainwal (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The plural or persona is personae, see dictionaries. --Marius.andreiana (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, but the field uses the plural "personas", so that is probably preferable in this context. 11 February 2012.
Marketing
Personas are often used for marketing purposes, that have nothing to do with design or usability. the article claim that the latter is the most common use was unsourced, and most likely wrong. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, it is not the same use for these two fieds! I have got the same problem in the french version. It should be better to create a new article "Persona(Usability)" or "Persona(design)". What do you think about it?--Usabilis (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Personas as used in human centered design has nothing to do with market segmentation. This article is confusing, and on some point wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.161.225 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Per the two complaints above and my own agreement, I've moved the article back. There is clearly consensus for now. Steven Walling • talk 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)