She really created a confusion around the way the UX Designers created Personas, but actually I do agree with her point of view.
She posted a tweet a yesterday saying the following:
What happened after that was a discussion around on how deep we need to define our Personas in order to validate their thinking and way to behave.
Here it goes my conflict whenever I have to create my own Personas. Sometimes because I did the interviews and I was involved from the beginning into the process it’s easier to understand the depth behind them but is not the same whenever I shown those with the Team.
For that reason, I’m forced to take real examples to give them “live” but then again, this Person can act differently in a different contexts so that’s why I use all the time Flowcharts + Personas (and you can read my post around it).
I have the need to graphic the scenario as a goal + motivation all together in a timeline which I call Flowchart. Then and recently then, I have everything drew I can easily focus and even do the analysis around importance in order to create main features.
…”Personas don’t work as generalizations; they need specific context. This is because personas aren’t meant for overall uses — they’re meant for ideation and designing solutions within a specific scope that your organization is concerned with this month or quarter.”
…”This kind of information is collected in small studies, maybe 10–18 participants each. You don’t need to do it all the time — it is completely separate from your development cycle. You will never know everything about people, so you approach it like natural science and explore one little aspect at a time.”
A good example of a Persona used in a Case of Study, provided by Indi Young too, in her twitter account:
This is exactly what I do but graphically using storyboards to share on my teams.
It was lovely to read something reflecting the ages of experience in Research plus the practical guidance on how to do it.