PATHY: Using Empathy with Personas to Design Applications that Meet the Users’ Needs

  • Bruna Moraes FerreiraEmail author
  • Simone D. J. Barbosa
  • Tayana Conte
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9731)


The importance of User Experience has been increasingly recognized in the context of developing interactive applications. The Personas technique aims to help designers to better understand users’ needs. However, various Personas techniques use too much information and the textual description template does not explicitly guide designers in identifying functionality and features of the applications. Therefore, some designers have questioned the usefulness of the technique, limiting its acceptance and adoption. In this context, we proposed the PATHY technique, combining Personas and Empathy Maps in a novel approach. We conducted an empirical study to determine the participants’ perception about the usefulness and ease of use of the technique. We analyzed the participants’ quantitative and qualitative answers. The study showed that PATHY was considered both easy to use and useful. Furthermore, the results of the study offer insights for further improvements of the technique.


Users’ needs Empathy Personas User experience Empathy map 



We thank all the students who participated in the empirical study. And we would like to acknowledge the financial support granted by CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel); the financial support granted by FAPEAM (Foundation for Research Support of the Amazonas State) through processes numbers: 062.00600/2014; 062.00578/2014; CNPq processes 309828/2015-5, 453996/2014-0, 460627/2014-7; and CAPES process 175956/2013.


  1. 1.
    Adikari, S., McDonald, C., Campbell, J.: Reframed contexts: design thinking for agile user experience design. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8012, pp. 3–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bratsberg, H.M.: Empathy maps of the FourSight preferences. In: Creative Studies Graduate Student Master’s Project. Buffalo State College. Paper 176 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castro, J.W., Acuña, S.T., Juristo, N.: Enriching requirements analysis with the personas technique. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on: Interplay Between Usability Evaluation and Software Development (I-USED 2008), pp. 13–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, A.: The Inmates are Running the Asylum: Why High-Tech Products Drive us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Sams Publishers, Indianapolis (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, F.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–339 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: Finding and resolving security misusability with misusability cases. J. Requirements Eng. 21(80), 1–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faily, S., Fléchais, I.: Persona cases: a technique for grounding personas. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2267–2270. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferreira, B.M., Silva, W.A.F., Oliveira, E., Conte, T.U.: Designing personas with empathy map. In: 27th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2015), Pittsburgh, vol. 1. pp. 501–506 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray, D., Brown, S., Macanufo, J.: Gamestorming – A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers and changemakers. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grudin, J., Pruitt, J.: Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In: PDC 2002, pp. 144–152 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO DIS 9241-210:2010. Ergonomics of human system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). International Standardization Organization (ISO)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Javahery, H., Ahmed, S.: P2P mapper: from user experiences to pattern-based design. AIS Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact. 4(2), 107–128 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laitenberger, O., Dreyer, H.M.: Evaluating the usefulness and the ease of use of a web-based section data collection tool. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics, pp. 122–132 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Law, E.L.C., Abrahão, S., Vermeeren, A.P., Hvannberg, E.T.: Interplay between user experience evaluation and system development: state of the art. In: International Workshop on the Interplay between UX Evaluation and System Development, pp. 14–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mashapa, J., Chelule, E., Van Greunen, D., Veldsman, A.: Managing user experience – managing change. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8118, pp. 660–677. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, L., Nielsen, K.S., Stage, J., Billestrup, J.: Going global with personas. In: Kotzé, P., Marsden, G., Lindgaard, G., Wesson, J., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2013, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 8120, pp. 350–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business Model Generation. Alta Books Editora, Rio de Janeiro (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pruitt, J., Adlin, T.: The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout the Product Design. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seaman, C.B.: Qualitative methods. In: Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.K. (eds.) Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 35–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sproll, S., Peissner, M., Sturm, C.: From product concept to user experience: exploring UX potentials at early product stages. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp. 473–482. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strauss, A., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vermeeren, A.P., Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp. 521–530. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M.: Towards practical user experience evaluation methods. In: Law, E.L.C., Bevan, N., Christou, G., Springett, M., Lárusdóttir, M., (eds.) Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM), pp. 19–22 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruna Moraes Ferreira
    • 1
    Email author
  • Simone D. J. Barbosa
    • 2
  • Tayana Conte
    • 1
  1. 1.USES Research Group, Instituto de ComputaçãoUniversidade Federal do AmazonasManausBrazil
  2. 2.Semiotic Engineering Research Group, Department of InformaticsPUC-RioRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations