User Research Smoke & Mirrors - Reflection

The five-part article on "User Research Smoke & Mirrors" was an interesting and passionately written piece. The focus of the article was to dissect the usefulness of user research and to differentiate between science and design.

The author dramatically and long-windedly talks about how user research is oftentimes misused, misinterpreted, and even inaccurate. Although his repetitive, five-part article could have been shortened to one, I tend to agree with his opinions. He brings up fantastic examples that challenge the validity of high-tech, expensive forms of user research such as "eyetracking." He states that although eyetracking is a strong tool that can aid the design process, it can be detrimental if put in the wrong hands. For example, a lot of time spent looking at something doesn't necessarily mean it interesting or pretty - it could mean it is confusing. A misinformed designer could take a piece of information and draw a completely wrong conclusion, which leads to a completely wrong design. Basically, I believe a smart designer is more useful than any form of “by the book” user research such as eyetracking, since designing is not a science, but an art.

I also enjoyed how the author "grounded" the well-known IDEO piece. When I first saw that, I had an inclination that it was a highly idealized, edited version of how professionals design a product. And although it was inspirational, I prefer to see an accurate portrayal of how things really work, especially when I am young and somewhat impressionable.

I particularly agree with his criticism of the "persona room" idea. When it was first mentioned - before I read the details of it - I stopped and thought, "Wow, what an absurdly expensive and non-practical way to perform user research." As I read on, the author wrote his opinions exactly how I would have. I question whether the added value can even marginally justify the preposterous cost - a cost that can be avoided by, as the author puts it, "a smart UI designer." To me, this is a perfect example of "smoke and mirrors," a cool sounding idea that, when properly dissected, is unveiled as nothing but an overpriced, ineffective way to convince stakeholders or uneducated peers that a design is worth pursuing.

User research should certainly be included in the design process, but the pseudo-scientific methods should never be repackaged or modified to pass themselves off as purely objective or scientific. Doing so insults real user research, user research that is admittedly subjective and non-scientific, user research that admits it is only effective when observed by a professional, experienced designer. I definitely agree with the fact that there are numerous examples of blatant misrepresentation of data that draws inaccurate (or just wrong) conclusions.

The author takes several emotionally-written pages to arrive at it, and it seems rather obvious to me, but the conclusion merits repetition: user research is an important aspect of the design process, but when it comes down to it, smart designers with good ideas and experience are what make a good design.