I imagine there are two typical knee jerk reactions to the thought of spending time researching audience details. The common through process must be “Why waste time doing all that extra work when I have a general idea of who will use the site?” Either that or “I know what works, I’m the expert.”

In response to the first knee-jerk reaction, I might make the following case:

“You may think you know the audience, but a persona will help give everyone on the team a clear, detailed understanding of who will be using the site. Everyone may think they know the audience, but there is no consensus until those details are clarified and communicated. With these personas in place, the users and their needs will never be forgotten throughout the design process; they remain front-and-center.”

I would also point out that stereotypes paint too broad a brush of users (and possibly false assumptions) and does not take into account different needs from different users. Dan Brown also offers a helpful tool: devising a list of questions that would be difficult for team members to answer, proving the importance of real research.

In response to the second knee-jerk reaction, I would attempt to take the egos down a notch and point out Cooper’s explanation of “self-referential design,” reminding team-members that they are not designing a site for themselves. As an example, I may point out a product (not a website) that may be cutting-edge but not well-designed for the end user (perhaps Windows Vista) in order to make my point stick.

_________________________________________________________________

1. How can a team benefit from personas when there is no access to “real” hard-hitting evidence?

2. In a situation where there are a handful of unique personas, how does the team prioritize them?

3. How does a design team integrate personas when designing a site used by all types of users, such as for a government website?