Twice I have had a falling out regarding the utility of user research. On those two occasions I have failed to build an understanding of my perspective. I encountered what I would like to call the value-free user research perspective.

This lofty ideal is alluring: We as design researchers can provide truth to the designers given enough time and money. But no-one can do this – and if some godlike person could give us a complete understanding of the user, no-one would need it because that knowledge is only valuable to the extent that it may be related to the product.

Because:⌗

  • There is no such thing as open inquiry - every investigation into the user experience is motivated by beliefs and ideas, no matter how shaky their grounding.

  • It is better to be open about one’s own presuppositions and ideas than trying to maintain the blank facade.

  • You want actionable insight that is easily shared within the team. There are specific questions that need answers. To increase the signal-to-noise ratio highlight your findings, forget the rest.

  • Interviews can give an initial understanding, interaction sketches may provide some feedback. But to gain a high-level understanding of the user and the design, you will need an interaction with a high-fidelity prototype.

  • Clickable sketches seem like the easy way out, but they are a dead end street in the design process. Instead of building the product and get feedback along the way, you iterate on sketches by drawing more and more connections between them – creating design spaghetti. It may feel good, but you’ll only postpone important decisions.

  • You do not need to test everything. Because user experience conventions work. Test as specifically as possible where you need help to make choices.

So start guessing and get the feedback you need.