skip to main content
10.1145/2207676.2208344acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Comparing collaboration and individual personas for the design and evaluation of collaboration software

Authors Info & Claims
Published:05 May 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

Collaboration personas are a tool that can be used to design for groups. Prior work posits that collaboration personas can improve tool adoption by helping designers create collaboration tools that are better targeted to the goals, needs, and interactions between members of collaborative groups. We present a comparative study of design and user experience practitioners who used both collaboration personas and individual personas. Participants conducted a cognitive walkthrough and provided redesign suggestions for a collaboration tool. Our results show that the focus of the cognitive walkthrough and redesign task differed, with collaboration personas showing more group focus. Collaboration personas led to a more complete discussion, as indicated by a greater amount of time spent on the task compared to individual personas. Despite prior experience and training with individual personas, collaboration personas were preferred and better supported the task, since they focused on groups of people and their interactions.

References

  1. Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Sams. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Goodwin, K., Cooper, A. (2009). Designing for the digital age: How to create human-centered products and services. Wiley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Holtzblatt, L., Damianos, L., Weiss, D. (2010). Factors impeding wiki use in the enterprise: A case study. Collective Intelligence Workshop at CSCW.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T., Yuen, S. (2011). Collaboration personas: A new approach to designing workplace collaboration tools. Proc. of CHI. 2247--2256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T., Yuen, S., Judge, T. (2011). Productive interrelationships between collaborative groups ease the challenges of dynamic and multi-teaming. CSCW Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10606-011-9154-y. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small group research, 22, 2, 147--174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Pruitt, J., Adlin, T. (2006). The persona lifecycle: Keeping people in mind throughout the product design. M. Kaufmann. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Whittaker, S. (2005). Supporting Collaborative Task Management in Email. HCI, 20, 49--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Comparing collaboration and individual personas for the design and evaluation of collaboration software

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2012
      3276 pages
      ISBN:9781450310154
      DOI:10.1145/2207676

      Copyright © 2012 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 May 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader