DRAFT: User Research report

Bonjour,

This is a DRAFT (and a wiki so it can be edited at will). Very early stage but I wanted to work on it right after the affinity mapping session that happened yesterday, while it is still in my short term memory.

TODO:

  • :white_check_mark: re-read the interview transcripts to find significant evidence that I overlooked
    • :white_check_mark: AR
    • :white_check_mark: CJ
    • :white_check_mark: CP
    • :white_check_mark: DA
    • :white_check_mark: DO
    • :white_check_mark: GR
    • :white_check_mark: MA
    • :white_check_mark: NA
    • :white_check_mark: PO
    • :white_check_mark: ZA
  • :white_check_mark: carefully proofread and trim my own bias/interpretation when it crept in the report
  • :clock11: in addition to the description of the persona, add details about the demographics of the actual participants (only pro, no hobbyists etc.). The majority of participants have or had links with LogiLab. This is worth mentionning and could have been avoided but that was discovered during the affinity mapping session, at the very late stage of User Research. It does not seem to introduce a bias and it was decided to not discard interviews on these grounds.
  • :clock11: discuss recommendations (they are not thought through ATM)
  • :clock11: add a presentation of the whole process at the beginning (copy/pasting from the preparation topic)

Update 2021/06: the final version can be found in the wiki.

The content was changed to have a more unified style (i.e. consistently describe what the interviewees said rather than making abstract statements). References to interviews were added to facilitate the review by making it easier to read the words from the interviewees that are presented as evidence of a statement.

Re-reading interviews in the past 24h, I realized this is how it should be done. The affinity mapping identified emerging themes: it came from shredding the interviews & percolating them in the brains of six people. And the report is going the other way around: explaining these emerging themes in way that is grounded in extracts from the interviews. It does not matter that they are the same extracts that were used during the affinity mapping. What is important is that the report does not draw conclusions that are unrelated to what the participants actually said.

My late Friday epiphany right here :slight_smile:

1 Like

This is version 0 of the report, moved to the wiki so it is more convenient to work on it.

@pilou the version 1 of the report is ready for your review. Now is a good time to catch typos :stuck_out_tongue: