Week 5: Personas and Audience Analysis
- Discussion : Facebook
- Discussion : Aesthetic Analysis
- Discussion : Competitive Analysis (three not linked)
- Mini-Lecture : Personas (ppt)
- Reminder: please do not use “course notes” as a category! And remember to use the “more” link on your posts.
Discussion : Facebook
One of the goals for the websites you are developing in this class is for them to mindfully integrate social media tools. Although we may be advising organizations about how they can utilize social media networks … at the same time we are “consumers” or “members” of those same networks.
Take a moment and read these three articles, then we’ll talk in small groups about how we would advise Seattle H4H to think about FB integration. We’ll begin with this excerpt from danah boyd’s keynote at WWW2012 last week (emphasis added):
Privacy is not about control over data nor is it a property of data. It’s about a collective understanding of a social situation’s boundaries and knowing how to operate within them. In other words, it’s about having control over a situation. It’s about understanding the audience and knowing how far information will flow. It’s about trusting the people, the situating, and the context. People seek privacy so that they can make themselves vulnerable in order to gain something: personal support, knowledge, friendship, etc.
People feel as though their privacy has been violated when their expectations are shattered. This classicly happens when a person shares something that wasn’t meant to be shared. This is what makes trust an essential part of privacy. People trust each other to maintain the collectively understood sense of privacy and they feel violated when their friends share things that weren’t meant to be shared.
Understanding the context is not just about understanding the audience. It’s also about understanding the environment. Just as people trust each other, they also trust the physical setting. And they blame the architecture when they feel as though they were duped. Consider the phrase “these walls have ears” which dates back to at least Chaucer. The phrase highlights how people blame the architecture when it obscures their ability to properly interpret a context.
Consider this in light of grumblings about Facebook’s approach to privacy. The core privacy challenge is that people believe that they understand the context in which they are operating; they get upset when they feel as though the context has been destabilized. They get upset and blame the technology.
During its tenure, Facebook has made a series of moves that have complicated people’s understanding of context, resulting in numerous outpourings of frustration over privacy.
Facebook is highly incentivized to encourage people to make their data more publicly accessible. But most people would not opt-in to such a change if they understood what was happening. As a result, Facebook’s initial defaults were viewed as deceptive by regulators in Canada and Europe. I interviewed people about their settings. Most had no idea that there was a change. I asked them to describe what their privacy settings were and then asked them to look at them with me; I was depressed to learn that these never matched. (Notably, everyone that I talked to changed their settings to more private once they saw what their settings did.)
- Toni: Instant Personalization or Instant Privacy Violation
- Renay San Miguel (disclaimer: I’m quoted – with typos): Privacy : Has Facebook Finally Gone Too Far?
- ecommerce : Elizabeth, Madeline, Nicole, Scott, Stephen, Toni
- media : Elise, Janna, Jody, Sarah
- nfp: Holly, Leslie, Pam
- government : Danielle, Helen, Marc (need links to your analyses, not the websites)
Second, in small groups, compare your criteria/assessments/tasks. Try to develop a set of heuristics (measurements) applicable for analyzing this genre.
SeattleH4H 1 and 2 : read & compare – discuss (split so that a group is composed of half from one group and half from the other)
Individual Projects: Danielle/Jody/Nazgul/Stephen and Elise/Leslie/Scott. Likewise, read & compare – discuss.
Overarching questions: what did your partners think about re competitive analysis that you will use next time? If you had this assignment to do over, how would you approach it?
- Seattle Habitat for Humanity 1-Elizabeth, Helen, Madeline, Pam & Sarah
- Seattle Habitat for Humanity 2 – Marc, Janna, Toni, Nicole, & Holly
- Individual Projects:
- Danielle: Personas, Audience and Web Design
Details for Defining Personas
- A name (a real name like Greg or Madeline, etc.)
- A photo
- Personal information, including family and home life
- Work environment (the tools used and the conditions worked under, rather than a job description)
- Computer proficiency and comfort level with using the Web
- Pet peeves and technical frustrations
- Motivation or “trigger” for using a high-tech product (not just tasks, but end results)
- Information-seeking habits and favorite resources
- Personal and professional goals
- Candid quotes
Source: Alan Cooper, The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity, Indianapolis: Sams, 1999, Chapter Nine. (Wording condensed and modified.)
More Tasks To Think About
- Try to find hours of operation
- What assumptions might we make about the audiences for these sites?
- Discussion Leaders: Wed 12 May : 9-11 : RSS [Jody], HTML5 [Stephen], Cookies (State Management) [Elise]
- Individual WordPress sites: by 9 am next Wed, a blog post with current status and plan for remainder of the quarter. Remember, you don’t have to include actual content.
* List, describe and link the plugins you’ve found and the functionality you’d like that you haven’t yet incorporated.
* Provide a link to your design template.
* Next week, we’ll tweak the CSS of your design templates in a lab.