Session Title
Quick & Dirty: Cheap, Blitzkrieg Methods For Learning About Users
Presenter
Angel Anderson, HUGE
Session Type: Discussion
The economy sucks, budgets are tight and a lot of designers are feeling the squeeze. Time allotted for research gets compressed, or cut from the project, if it even was part of the scope in the first place. The challenge for designers in this environment is to figure out ways of discovering user goals and needs with very little time or money. Quick and dirty user research may not be optimal, but we’ve all had to do at one time or another. Let’s compare notes.
* What quick and dirty methods have YOU used to learn about the people who use your products?
* How do your results and designs compare to projects where you did “real” research?
* How do you trace design recommendations back to something that holds weight with clients when you weren’t scoped to do user research in the first place?
* Are there better ways to sell user research so they don’t get squeezed from the project?
Biography
Angel Anderson is a Senior Interaction Designer at HUGE, and has over 10 years of experience humanizing technology experiences for clients such as Fox, Disney, Apple, Tyco, and 3M. Angel is active in the local design community and helps promote and evangelize Interaction Design as the local leader for IxDA Los Angeles.
Angel made her Rock Band debut as singer with new IxDA friends Interaction ’08. Since then she’s become addicted to karaoke.
11 Comments
Really thought provoking topic Angel. Slashed budgets are becoming more and more commonplace, so this would be a helpful topic for all of us.
Definitely a good topic. Some research is better than none.
I have a talk on Empathy Tools in contention that takes a similar angle. It would be good to compare notes at the conference. I hope this gets accepted!
This is a great topic idea. I agree with John that any research is better than none though I’m not sure I like the notion of any research that’s “dirty”. I know that you’re using it to mean imperfect or inelegant, but if we’re going to call it research than I think it needs to have a base level of rigor to it. I feel like including some points on that angle might improve the discussion proposal. Otherwise, I think you’ve summarized the idea very well and proposed some great starting points.
Thanks for the feedback! I think Joshua makes a great point about determining an appropriate base level of rigor. The answer probably depends on the project. If this proposal is accepted, I’ll be sure to include that issue as part of our discussion.
I lost track of doing research while working in the USA. But now while in school again, I’ve realized the importance and help it can give you while designing. I look forward to hearing ways of selling and convincing clients of research!
I’m really looking forward to this topic. “Tight budgets” seem to sum up 2009, and it’ll be helpful to compare ways that we’ve responded in this environment.
I’m also particularly interested in exploring better ways to sell research (and get it to stick!). How do we convince clients with high-stakes conversions that user research is crucial?
I find that quick and dirty research is especially useful for initial idea generation, but usability generally takes more time. I would be curious to hear your take on the most effective timing of such ‘quick and dirty’ research during the project process.
This topic is so relevant!!! Research is an important cornerstone of effective design, and should not be passed over due to anemic budgets. And, as John said above, some is always better than none. Looking forward to hearing what you’ve got to say, Angel!
Definitely one of the most interesting topics that i would love to hear more about.
I have seen both extremes, where some corporations spend a lot of time, money and energy on some research that is not so relevant
and on the other hand some corporations dont want to spend anything on research – the primary concern being time or money
So, it would be really cool, if there are some quick, cheap and dirty methods to get this done – so that it becomes a mandatory and vital part of any project
One thing I would be curious to hear about is if anybody has experience with followup research. Design is ideally an iterative process yet often times in the agency environment we deliver a product and never hear back again. Is anybody out there conducting followup research to refine or validate designs and how is that working? Perhaps the inhouse people could speak to this as part of the discussion?
This is very relevant and pratical. Some for of validation is always helpful. I’ve worked on several projects where the ideal process of deriving results is rarely achieved, and often met with resistance due to budget. In the end working in a swift pace and tigh budget we do our best in applying a variety of ‘quick and dirty’ (low cost, effective, fairly quantifable) methods. I’d like to hear what methods others use. I’d also like to learn more about how this ties into justifying the cost – if a matrix of sorts can be creatd to map the $ to a method and how effective those methods are per design phase. GREAT work Angel. As always your pragmatic, down to earth and fun personality is appreciated.