Advertisement

Contextual Personas as a Method for Understanding Digital Work Environments

  • Åsa CajanderEmail author
  • Marta Larusdottir
  • Elina Eriksson
  • Gerolf Nauwerck
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 468)

Abstract

The role of IT at the workplace has changed dramatically from being a tool within the work environment to include all aspects of social and private life. New workplaces emerge where IT becomes more and more divergent, embedded and pervasive. These new aspects of IT at work need to be addressed with new or adapted human centred activities. This paper present and discuss a modified version of personas called contextual personas developed to better address the new working life. The contextual personas were developed using contextual inquiry, and focus groups as well as argumentative design. From the process of developing the contextual personas we learned that they are indeed a promising tool to understand the new work situations, and especially the holistic view of IT at work as they bring the whole working-life of the personas into focus. Finally, we discuss in what way the contextual personas could give developers extended understanding of the users’ future office work environment.

Keywords

Personas Digital work environment Usability 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was made with financial support from Uppsala University Administration through the KiA project (Quality in Use). We would like to thank everyone that participated in the interview study, and those who have given valuable input to this paper. We would also like to thank the illustrator, Maria Osk Jonsdottir, for her professional work on illustrating the faces of the personas.

References

  1. 1.
    Karasek, R., Theorell, T.: Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Working Life. Basic Books, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cajander, Å.: Usability–who cares? the introduction of user-centred systems design in organisations (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sandblad, B., Gulliksen, J., Åborg, C., Boivie, I., Persson, J., Göransson, B., et al.: Work environment and computer systems development. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(6), 375–387 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Åborg, C.: How does IT feel@ work? And how to make IT better: Computer use, stress and health in office work (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Åborg, C., Sandblad, B., Gulliksen, J., Lif, M.: Integrating work environment considerations into usability evaluation methods—the ADA approach. Interact. Comput. 15(3), 453–471 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergqvist, U.: Visual display terminal work—a perspective on long-term changes and discomforts. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 16(3), 201–209 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Punnett, L., Bergqvist, U.: Visual display unit work and upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders Ergonomic expert committee document/National institute for working life (Solna), Solna, p. 16 (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marklund, S., Arbetsmiljöverket, S.: Worklife and health in Sweden 2000. Arbetslivsinstitutet (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aronsson, G.: Dimensions of control as related to work organization, stress, and health. Int. J. Health Serv. 19(3), 459–468 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tornqvist, E.W., Eriksson, N., Bergqvist, U.: Risks factors at computer and office workplaces. In: Worklife and Health in Sweden 2000, p. 189 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danielsson, C.B.: The Office–an explorative study. Architectural design’s impact on health, job satisfaction and well-being. (Doctoral thesis), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (2010). http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-24429
  12. 12.
    Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., Janssen, I.: An end-user’s perspective on activity-based office concepts. J. Corp. Real Estate 13(2), 122–135 (2011). doi: 10.1108/14630011111136830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Koetsveld, R., Kamperman, L.: How flexible workplace strategies can be made successful at the operational level. J. Corp. Real Estate 1(4), 303–319 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gates, B.: The New World of Work. Accessed 17 October 2014 (2005). https://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2005/05-19newworldofwork.mspx
  15. 15.
    Too, L., Harvey, M.: “TOXIC” workplaces: the negative interface between the physical and social environments. J. Corp. Real Estate 14(3), 171–181 (2012). doi: 10.1108/14630011211285834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Humphry, J.: Visualising the future of work: myth, media and mobilities. Media Cult. Soc. 36(3), 351–366 (2014). doi: 10.1177/0163443713517730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alexander, K.: The application of usability concepts in the built environment. J. Facil. Manag. 4(4), 262–270 (2006). doi: 10.1108/14725960610702947 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rasila, H., Rothe, P., Kerosuo, H.: Dimensions of usability assessment in built environments. J. Facil. Manag. 8(2), 143–153 (2010). doi: 10.1108/14725961011041189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laing, A., Duffy, F., Jaunzens, D.: New Environments for Working: The Re-Design of Offices and Environmental Systems for New Ways of Working. Construction Research Communications Ltd., Watford (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grudin, J., Pruitt, J.: Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In: Paper presented at the PDC 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guðjónsdóttir, R.: Personas and Scenarios in Use (Doctoral thesis Trita-CSC-A), KTH, Sweden (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cooper, A.: The Inmates are Running the Asylum. SAMS publishing, Indianapolis (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pruitt, J., Grudin, J.: Personas: practice and theory. In: Paper presented at the Designing for User Experiences (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: The secret lives of assumptions: developing and refining assumption personas for secure system design. In: Paper presented at the Human-Centred Software Engineering (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sinha, R.: Persona development for information-rich domains. In: Paper presented at the CHI 2003 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Floyd, I.R., Jones, M.C., Twidale, M.B.: Resolving incommensurable debates: a preliminary identification of persona kinds, attributes, and characteristics. Artifact 2(1), 12–26 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Moran, T., Yuen, S.: Collaboration personas: a new approach to designing workplace collaboration tools. In: Paper presented at the CHI 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Portigal, S.: Persona non grata. Interactions 15(1), 72–73 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chapman, C.N., Milham, R.P.: The personas’ new clothes: methodological and practical arguments against a popular method. In: Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Turner, P., Turner, S.: Is stereotyping inevitable when designing with personas? Des. Stud. 32(1), 30–44 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blomquist, Å., Arvola, M.: Personas in action: ethnography in an interaction design team. In: Paper presented at the NordiCHI 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rönkkö, K., Hellman, M., Kilander, B., Dittrich, Y.: Personas is not applicable: local remedies interpreted in a wider context. In: Paper presented at the Participatory Design Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Friess, E.: Personas and decision making in the design process: an ethnographic case study. In: Paper Presented at the CHI 2012, Austin, Texas, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Markensten, E., Artman, H.: Procuring a usable system using unemployed personas. In: Paper presented at the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tampere, Finland (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cajander, Å., Nauwerck, G., Lind, T.: Things take time: establishing usability work in a university context. EUNIS J. High. Educ. IT 2(1) (2015)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heron, J., Reason, P.: The practice of co-operative inquiry: research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In: Handbook of Action Research, pp. 144–154 (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McKay, J., Marshall, P., McKay, J., Marshall, P.: The dual imperatives of action research. Inf. Technol. People 14(1), 46–59 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J.B., Wood, S.: Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques For User-Centered Design. Elsevier, San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., et al.: The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc. Sci. Med. 58(8), 1483–1499 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eriksson, E.: Situated Reflexive Change : User-Centred Design in(to) Practice (Doctoral thesis), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm (2013). http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-116403
  41. 41.
    Hackos, J.T., Redish, J.: User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. Wiley, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Larusdottir, M.K., Cajander, A., Gulliksen, J.: Informal feedback rather than performance measurements – user centred evaluation in scrum projects. Behav. Inf. Technol. 33(11), 1118–1135 (2014). doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.857430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Åsa Cajander
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marta Larusdottir
    • 2
  • Elina Eriksson
    • 3
  • Gerolf Nauwerck
    • 1
  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Reykjavik UniversityReykjavikIceland
  3. 3.KTH – Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations