Co-Created Personas: Engaging and Empowering Users with Diverse Needs Within the Design Process

City, University of London Institutional Repository

Citation:

Neate, T., Bourazeri, K., Roper, A. ORCID: 0000-0001-6950-6294, Stumpf, S.

ORCID: 0000-0001-6482-1973 and Wilson, S. ORCID: 0000-0001-6445-654X (2019).

Co-Created Personas: Engaging and Empowering Users with Diverse Needs Within the Design

Process. In: CHI '19 Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems. (650.). New York, USA: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-5970-2

This is the accepted version of the paper.

This version of the publication may differ from the final published

version.

Permanent repository link:

http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/21271/

Link to published version:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300880

Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research

outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience.

Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright

holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and

linked to.

City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected]

Co-Created

Personas:

Engaging

and

Empowering

Users

with

Diverse

Needs

Within

the

Design

Process

TimothyNeate1,AikateriniBourazeri1,AbiRoper1,2,SimoneStumpf1,StephanieWilson1

1_{CentreforHCIDesign,City,UniversityofLondon,London,UK}

2_{DivisionofLanguageandCommunicationScience,City,UniversityofLondon,London,UK}

{timothy.neate,katerina.bourazeri,abi.roper.1,simone.stumpf.1,s.m.wilson}@city.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Personasarepowerfultoolsfordesigningtechnologyand

envisioningitsusage.Theyarewidelyusedtoimagine

ar-chetypalusersaroundwhomtoorientdesignwork.Wehave

beenexploringco-createdpersonasasatechniquetouse

inco-designwithuserswhohavediverseneeds.Ourvision

wasthatthiswouldbroadenthedemographicandliberate

co-designersof theirpersonal relationship withahealth

condition.Thispaper reports three studieswhere we

in-vestigatedusingco-createdpersonaswithpeoplewhohad

Parkinson’sdisease,dementiaoraphasia.Observationaldata

ofco-designsessionswerecollectedandanalysed.Findings

revealedthattheco-createdpersonasencourageduserswith

diverseneedstoengagewithco-designing.Importantly,they

alsoafordedadditionalbeneftsincludingempoweringusers

withinamoreaccessibledesignprocess.Refectingonthe

outcomesfromthediferentusergroups,weconcludewith

adiscussionofthepotentialforco-createdpersonastobe

appliedmorebroadly.

KEYWORDS

Co-createdpersonas,co-design,aphasia,dementia,

Parkin-son’sdisease,vulnerableusers,healthcare,design.

1 INTRODUCTION

Thedesignofhealthandcaretechnologieshascomeinto

fo-cusintheHCIcommunityinrecentyears,especiallywiththe

dramaticriseofchronichealthconditionsinanincreasingly

Timothy Neate, Aikaterini Bourazeri, Abi Roper, Simone Stumpf, Stephanie Wilson. This is the accepted version of the paper, hosted by the authors. Definitive version published at CHI 2019 and available at:

doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300880

ageingWesternpopulation[17].Forexample,thereare

cur-rentlyover46millionpeopleafectedbydementiaworldwide

[18],approximately10millionpeopleworldwideareliving

withParkinson’sdisease[19],andaroundathirdofallpeople

survivingastrokewillexperiencesomeformofaphasia[3].

Inparallel,therehavebeencallstoinvolvetargetuser

groupsdirectlyin participatorydesign [5]andco-design

[34] ofhealthservicesanddigital technologiesto ensure

theirsuccessandadoption[15,29,45].Co-designtechniques

havebeenadoptedforinvolvingvulnerableusergroups,such

aspeoplewithdementia[20,24,39]andaphasia[13,33,43].

Thisnoted,manyco-designtechniquesandmethodshave

limitationsforusein situationswherethephysical,

emo-tionalandsocialfactorsrelatedtoaspecifchealthcondition

anditssymptoms,andtheresultingrequirementsfor

tech-nology,needtobeconsidered.Forexample,manyco-design

techniquesweredevelopedwithaviewtomoreegalitarian

design,withoutaparticularfocusondiverseusergroups

[5].Thedesigntechniquesthemselves,then,arelikelynot

accessibletousers withcognitive,physicalandlanguage

impairments.Suchdesignparadigmsmaycreate

problem-aticpowerstructuresbetweentheprofessionalresearchers

andtheco-designers,leadingto end-productsthatmight

notmeettheirexpectationsorrequirements.Anumberof

recentprojectshavebroadenedthedesignconstituencyby

committingtoco-designwithuserswithdiverseneeds,such

aspeoplewithdementia[20,21,32],aphasia[13,33,43]and

olderindividuals[26].Inthispaper,weleverageaclassic

designtool–thepersona–andreconsideritsuseby

encour-agingco-designerstoco-createpersonas.Indoingthis,we

aimtobroadenthedemographicbeyondthosedirectly

partic-ipatingandobfuscatethepersonalrelationshipbetween

co-designersandtheirhealthconditions.Thispapercontributes

tothedesignprocessoftechnologiesforpeoplewithdiverse

healthconditions(Parkinson’s,dementiaandaphasia)by:

• Describingourexperienceofincorporatingco-created

personasintoco-designprojects;

• Presentingfndingsfromtheusageofco-created

per-sonaswithdiverseusergroups;and

• Detailingthesubstantiveafordancesofusingco-created

2 RELATEDWORK

Co-DesignandCo-DesignMethods

Engagingusersisanimportantaspectofdesignandthere

areanumberofwaystocreate empathywiththeirlived

experiences[46].Engagingusersinparticipatorydesign[5]

andco-design[34]intheearlystagesofaprojectare

well-adoptedapproaches,especiallywhendesigningtechnology

inhealthandsocialcarecontexts[15].Workingwiththose

whoengagewiththedesigndomainintheirlived

experi-encehasbeenshownto be ahighlyefectivestrategy of

engagement[25],outperformingnon-co-designedsolutions.

Co-designgoesbeyondsimplyconsultingausergroupfor

theirrequirements,insteadconsideringthemasdesigners

withintheprocesswhocontributecreativelytodesign

deci-sions.ProjectssuchastheworkofRobinsonetal.[32]are

exemplarsoftheefcacyofthisdesignapproach.Giventhe

successofco-designinengaginguserstowardsachieving

efectiveoutcomes,therehasbeenagrowingvoice

advocat-ingitsuseindesigningtechnologies[9,34],particularlyin

healthcontexts[15,43].

Anumberoftechniqueshavebeenconsideredfor

engag-ingusersinthedevelopmentoftechnologies,however,many

ofthesearenotaccessibletothosewiththehealth

condi-tionsfocusedoninthispaper(Parkinson’sdisease,dementia

andaphasia).Suchtechniquesaregenerallyabstract,

cog-nitivelydemandingandrequirehighlevelsofspeechand

languageprofciency.Recently,designtechniquestoengage

individualsfacingchallengestotheirspeech/language[43]

orcognitivefunction[21]havebeenreported.Adaptions

tocurrenttechniqueshavealsobeenshowntoofer

efec-tivesolutions[46].Forexample,onemightengageauser

groupinaworkshopbyutilisingdrawings,photographsand

varyinglevelsofprototypetodevelopsolutions[9],

employ-ingexpertsinengagingwiththeusergrouptofacilitatethe

session.BourazeriandStumpf[7]describeantypical

exam-pleofthisprocessindetail(theirPERCEPTapproach)from

scopingandethicsapproval,torecruitmentandthedesign

processitself.

Todeveloptechnologyforpeoplewithdementia,theKITE

project[32]employedworkshops,focusgroupsand

devel-opedprototypes.Engagementwasfacilitatedwithpeople

withdementiaandtheircarers.TheOASIS[21]methodused

video-promptstofacilitatediscussionaboutatechnology,

inspiredbyinvisibledesignconcepts[8].Althoughworking

withfctionalorlow-fdelityprototypeshasbeenshownto

besuccessfulwithanumberofgroups,sometimesa

strat-egyistousehigher-fdelityprototypes.Withcertainuser

groups–especiallypeoplewithaphasia–ithasbeen

demon-stratedthathigherfdelityprototypesreducetheamountof

abstractionrequired[13,13,33].Wilsonetal.[43]describe

theSWIM(SomeoneWhoIsnotMe)technique,which

en-couragesaco-designertoconsidersomeonetheyknowasa

‘stand-in’withinthedesignprocess,therebybroadeningthe

demographicoftheco-designerpopulation.

Anotherapproach,probes[14]–thedeploymentofsmall

packsofartefactstoelicitresponsestounderstandauser

group– has beenusedextensively in design [6].Probes

havedemonstratedsomedegreeofsuccesswithpopulations

withParkinson’sdiseaseanddementia[20,39,40].Finally,

anotherapproachistoundertakelonger-termengagement

withusersbyworkingintheirhomes[26],ofcourseatthe

expenseofresource.

Personas

Personashavebeenproposedasfctitiousrepresentations

ofusergroups–“hypotheticalarchetypes”oftargetusers

– andtheirgoals,needsandpreferences[1,11].Theyare

widelyusedinUXpracticeandsoftwaredevelopment,often

producedbyUXresearchersaspartofspecifyingthe

con-textofuseofaproductandthentakenforwardtocreate

andevaluatedesignsolutions,viaideation,expertreviews

orcognitivewalkthroughs,especiallywhenparticipatory

designmethodsarenotpossible[1,12,22].

Manyadvantagesofusingpersonashavebeenidentifed

[30].Firstly,Personascreateastrongfocusonuser-centred

design.Theyhelpdevelopmentteamsengageinuser-centred

activitiesthroughbroadapplicationofpersonasinfeature

specifcations,storyboards,designdiscussions,etc.Personas

canbeagoodwaytoensureusersarerepresentedwhen

de-signinganddevelopingtechnologyforhealthcare[28,41,42],

especiallywheninvolvingusers moredirectlyisdifcult

duetoeitherclinical,ethicalorpracticalreasons.Personas

allowus toextendindividualusercharacteristicsintofully realisedcharacterswhoseattributescan beconsideredasa wholeacrossavarietyofnovelsituations.Thus,theybring

coherencetoalargesetofpossibledesignfeatures.Personas

makeassumptionsaboutthetargetusersexplicit[30].They

allowdevelopmentteamstobasetheirdesigndecisionson

explicitinformationabouthowtheyassumetheproductwill

beusedandbywhom.Personasareaimedataspecifcuser

groupwhichisthefocusofdesign[30].Thishelpsto

distin-guishwhotheproductisbeingaimedatandwhoitisnot.

Finally,Personassupporttheteamtocommunicate

informa-tionquickly.Personasefectivelydistilcomplexdatasuchas

thatderivedfromethnographicstudyofusers[4],interviews

andobservationswithusers[35]andlarge-scaleonline

ques-tionnaires[23],usingnarrativeandstorytellingtoenhance

rememberingandorganisingdetaileddataaboutusers.

Anumberofefortshave introducedpersonas into

co-design,buthave notco-designedthem.Examplescanbe

foundinthedesignofdigitalpeersupportserviceswhere

servicesandhelp youngchildren diagnosed withcancer

totransitionfromintensivecaretoeverydaylife[41].The

HealthMapproject[42]introducedpatient-personasto

ex-plorehowmobileandInternet-basedtechnologiescan

sup-portpeoplelivingwithHIVintheself-managementofchronic

disease.Inanotherparticipatoryservicedesign,young

patient-personaswithtype1diabeteswereinvolvedinthedesign

ofinnovativehealthservices[37].However,thereislittle

workaroundco-creatingpersonaswithinthedesignprocess.

BourazeriandStumpf[7]reportusingco-createdpersonas

withpeoplewithdementiaandParkinson’sdisease,while

Cabreroetal.[10]considersco-createdpersonausein

design-ingforpeopleinruralNamibiaasacross-culturalresearch

probe.Thiswork,whileimportant,doesnotrefectonthe

us-ageorefcacyofthepersonawithinthedesignprocess.We

builduponthediscussionsoftheuseofco-createdpersonas

indesignandoferadetailedinvestigationofthecreation,

usageandoutcomesofco-designingpersonasinthreedesign

situationswithaviewtounderstandingtheoutcomesand

processesofco-creatingpersonaswithdiverseusergroups.

3 THESTUDIES

Workingwithco-designers,oneislimitedtotheexperience

intheroom.Thegoalofthethreeco-createdpersona

ac-tivitiesinvestigatedherewastobroadenthedemographic

ofthedesignteamsbycreatingandbringingnewfctional

peopleintotheprocess.Further,fromourprevious

experi-enceworkingwithpeoplewithchronichealthconditions,

wefoundthatitcanoftenbeachallengetodirectlyaddress

people’slivedexperienceofacondition,thereforewewished

toabstractfromthissomewhat.Duringeachofthethree

studies,wedesignedpersonaswiththeco-designer

partic-ipantsfromtheoutset.Thepersonaswerenotsetinstone

– theycouldfextofttheneedsofthedesign,andcould

bechangedastheremitofthedesignbecamemorefocused

andless‘fuzzy’[34].Wefrstdescribethethreeco-created

personaactivities(the"studies")andtheirusergroups,

fol-lowedbyourapproachforgeneratingthepersonas.Thenwe

describehowweanalysedtheco-designactivitiesandreport

thefndings.Allco-designerresearcherswereDBS-checked

toworkwithvulnerablepopulationsandethicalapproval

wasacquiredthroughCity,UniversityofLondon.

Study1:PeoplewithParkinson’sDisease

Study1involvedpeoplewithParkinson’sdisease.Thisisa

neurodegenerativedisorderthatleadstoprogressive

deteri-orationofmotorfunction,includingtremor,stifness,

slow-ness,impairedbalanceand,lateron,ashufinggait.The

co-designerparticipantswere5malesand1female:Paul,

Adam,Brian,Prabhu,GarethandSarah,withanaverageage

of65(range=58- 74),comingfromdiversebackgrounds,and

withaninterestinimprovingtheirdailylivingwiththeuse

oftechnology.(Allco-designerparticipantsarereferredtoby

pseudonymsinthispaper).Study1wasundertakenaspart

ofaprojecttoco-designanddevelopanintelligenttoolkit

ofsoftware,hardwareandsensorsthatwillsupportpeople

livingwithchronicconditions–theSCAMPI(Self-Care

Ad-vice,Monitoring,PlanningandIntervention)project.This

toolkitwillallowapersonlivingintheirownhome,together

withtheirinformalcarers,tocreate,changeandmonitora

qualityoflifeplan.Co-designerparticipantswererecruited

throughsupportorganisationstargetingthesegroups,such

asAlzheimer’sSociety,Parkinson’sUK,andlocaldementia

cafes.Fourco-designworkshopswereconductedoverthe

courseof sixmonths,eachlastingaboutthreehoursand

spacedaboutsixweeksapart.Forafulldescriptionofthe

co-designactivitiesandthePERCEPTapproachtoco-create

andapplypersonaswiththeusersduringtheexploration,

designandevaluationstepsofthetoolkit,see[7].

• Workshop1:createinitial personasby exploring

thebackground,technologyuse,activitiesandgoals

ofusersandco-designerparticipants.

• Workshop2:reviewandextendpersonas;exploring

theuseofsensorstoinformacomputationalmodel.

• Workshop3:applypersonasthroughdesigningthe

userinterfaceusinglow-fdelityprototyping.

• Workshop4:applypersonastoevaluatetheuser

in-terfacedesignusinganadaptedcognitivewalk-through.

PersonaswithParkinson’sDeveloped.Wecreatedtwo

per-sonastorepresentpeoplewithParkinson’sdisease,Steven

andPat.Inaddition,twomorepersonasrepresentingSteven’s

wifeanddaughterwereaddedinworkshop3.Thesecanbe

foundinfullinthesupplementarymaterial.Stevenisamale

64yearold,diagnosedwithParkinson’sdiseasewhenhe

startedhavingdifcultiesin buttoningupshirts.Patisa

female53yearoldwithParkinson’sdiseasewhoworksasa

chiefexecutiveforapublichealthservice,diagnosedwhen

shestartedhavingproblemswiththevoicerecognition

sys-tematwork.

Study2:PeoplewithDementia

Thisstudyinvolvedpeoplewithdementiawhichiscaused

whenthebrainisdamaged,oftenbyAlzheimer’sdiseaseor

astroke,andincludescognitivesymptomssuchasmemory

loss,difcultieswithproblem–solvingandlanguageissues.

The co-designer participants were twomales(Colin and

George)withdementiawithanaverageageof75,andtheir

twofemalecarers(PaulaandJune)withanaverageageof60.

Weconductedfourworkshopsoverthecourseof6months,

asinStudy1,toco-createthepersonas.Thefrstworkshop

wasattendedbyfouradditionalpeoplewithdementiaand

andPaulajoinedatthesecondworkshop,withaseparate

mini-workshopforthemtocatchup,replacingWorkshop1.

PersonaswithDementiaDeveloped.Threepersonaswere

createdintotal:oneprimarypersonawithdementia(Fred)

andtwopersonas(Vera,hiswife,andEnid,hisdaughter)

fromhiswidercarenetwork.Fredisamale67yearoldretired

traindriverfromEssexwithdementia.Veraisafemale62

yearoldwhoisFred’swife.Vera’smaingoalistolookafter

Fredandensurethathisdailyroutineismaintained.Enidisa

female38yearold,FredandVera’sdaughter.Thesepersonas

canbefoundinthesupplementarymaterial.

Study3:PeoplewithAphasia

Co-designerparticipantsinstudy3werefourpeoplewho

hadmild-moderateaphasiaasaresultofstroke;twowere

fe-maleandtwoweremale(Elizabeth,Angela,OscarandNeil)

withanagerangeof44-68years(averageage58).Theywere

recruitedthroughconnectionswithaUniversityspeechand

languagedepartmentandwerechosenonthebasisthatthey

hadexperienceofconsultingonprevioustechnologyprojects

attheuniversity(involvingco-design).Theywereemployed

asmembersoftheresearchteamduringthisprocess.All

co-designerparticipantswerenotinworksincetheirstroke.

Fourco-designworkshopswereconductedoverasixmonth

periodinaprofessionaluserexperiencelabatCity,

Univer-sityofLondon.Eachworkshoplasted2hrs30mins,witha

30minbreakinthemiddle.Study3wasundertakenaspart

ofaprojecttodesignatechnologythatwillenablepeople

withaphasiatocreateandcuratedigitalcontent–theINCA

Project.Throughouttheworkshopsweweredesigningan

iPadappwhichwouldenableuserswithaphasiatoengage

increativewriting(see[27]fordetails).

• Workshop1:generatinginitialdataforfour

per-sonas.Theworkshopalsoinvolvedanicebreaker

ac-tivitywhereeveryonebroughtartefactstogettoknow

eachotherandforthegenerationoftwopersonas.

• Workshop 2:reviewingandextendingpersonas;

exploringcreativewritingprocessesthrough

generat-ingredactedpoems.

• Workshops3and4:applyingthepersonasby

de-signingandevaluatinganapptoenablepeoplewith

aphasiatoengageincreativewriting.Prototypesof

theappwereevaluatedindividuallyandwithingroups

withtheco-designerparticipants,andthrough

discus-sionsinthecontextofthepersonas.

PersonaswithAphasiaDeveloped.Fourpersonaswere

cre-ated in total (full details in thesupplementary material).

Jimmyisamale67yearoldretiredbusdriverwith

apha-siawhostruggleswithspeakingandwriting.Charlotteis

a56yearoldfemalewithaphasiawhoworksincustomer

supportatabankandstruggleswithreading.Annieisa

60yearoldwithaphasia.Sheisindependent(livesalone),

struggleswithherreadingandwritingandwouldlikemore

confdenceinherspeech.Johnisayoungstrokesurvivor

(25) whoworksasacarerandlurksonsocialmedia,and

struggleswithspeakingduetohisaphasia.

ANNIE

ability to speak to work on the front-desk in the library

ABOUT

APHASIA

blurb

TECHNOLOGY

PHYSICAL

Works as an

assistantin a library

Happiest whenWalking in the Countryside

SupportsWest

Ham

LovesItalian food

She has an old 'dumb'

phone

Has aLabrador, Harry

Struggles with comprehending emails

Struggles with

readingandwriting

Someone reading

out loudfor her helps a lot

She had her stroke about5 years

ago

Would like more confidenceinspeech

Annie is 60 years old, she lives in Raleigh, Essex, UK. She is married and has three children (2 girls (18 & 25) 1 boy (21).

Use of right hand is

OK but slow.

She isabletowalkwell

Figure1:Co-CreatedPersona,Annie,whowasdesignedwith fourpeoplewithaphasia.Thepersonawasco-designedin termsofbothitsdetails,anditsaphasia-friendlyaesthetic.

ApproachtoPersonaGeneration

PersonaCreation.Inallthree studies,weasked the

co-designerstoco-createpersonasinworkshop1.Duringthese

activities,weaskedthemtoinventanotherperson,similar

tothemselvesinthattheyhadthesameimpairment,that

wemightuseintheworkshopsasanextravoiceinthe

de-signprocess.Atthebeginningofeachstudy,theco-designer

researcherscreatedscafoldsbylistingfeaturesthatare

com-moninpersonas,suchasname,age,location,family,and

hobbies,andotherbackgroundinformation.Features

included.Theseincludeddigital contentcreationand

cu-ration,andhowpeoplewithaphasiamightengagewithit

inStudy3,ortheactivitiesthatpeoplewithdementiaand

Parkinson’sdiseasecarryoutintheireverydaylives,and

theirtechnologyuseinStudies1and2.

ployedinthestudies,duetothegoalsandtechnicalbackdrop

ofthedesigns,andtheusergroupsthemselves.Asmentioned

above,thefeaturesofthepersonaswerechosentoftthe

goalsofthedesignactivities.Studies1and2followedthe

PERCEPT(PERrsona-CEntredParticipatoryTechnology)

ap-proach[7].Personaswere constructediteratively,always

alternatingbetweenbringingoutco-designerparticipants’

livedexperiencesthroughaworkshopexercise,andthen

refectingonandintegratingthisinformationintothe

per-sonas.Thishadanefectonthenumberofpersonasinitially

created:participantswithParkinson’sdiseasecreatedtwo

primarypersonas,whereasparticipantswithdementia

cre-atedone,andtwosecondarypersonastorepresentawider

informalcarenetwork,mirroringthegroupcomposition.

theSWIMtechnique[43]toacquiredetailsaboutthe

impair-mentsofthepersonas.SWIMhasbeenshowntoworkwell

withpeoplewithaphasiaasitislessabstractandconcrete

discussionisusefulwiththispopulation.Eachco-designer

participantworkedwithaco-designerresearcherina

one-on-onesessioninwhich theywereasked tothink about

someonethattheyknowinreallife,capturingspecifc

de-tailsaboutthatperson’saphasiatobeusedinapersona.Due

tothewaythiswasorganised,fourpersonaswerecreated

(oneforeachco-designerparticipant).

Co-designerresearchersfacilitateddiscussionsbetween

theco-designerparticipantstoinventdataforthepersonas–

generallyonpaperorawhiteboard(forexample,seeFigure

2).Thiswasachievedbytheco-designerresearchers

ask-ingforspecifcdetailsaboutthepersonasthatwedeemed

importantforthedesign(e.g.,“HowolddowethinkAnnie

is?”).Theco-designerparticipantsthendiscussedthese

fea-turesandwereencouragedtothinkoutsideofthespecifc

informationwerequested;theywerethusempoweredtoadd

newfeaturestothepersonas.Theco-designerresearchers

triedtoensurethateachmemberoftheco-designteamhad

equalweightinginthediscussions,whichwassometimes

facilitatedbyturn-takingwhenchoosingcharacteristicsofa

givenpersona.

inrelationtoothercharacteristicsofthepersonaandthe

otherpersonascreated.Ingeneral,wemadesurethatall

co-designerparticipantswerehappywithagivenfeatureand

itsdatabeforemovingon.Thenumberofpersonascreated

dependedontherequirementsoftheproject.Generally,the

There were some diferences between the approaches

em-Incontrast,theworkwithpeoplewithaphasiautilised

Consensus was reached through discussion of features

Figure2:Resultofasessionworkingwithpeoplewith apha-sia.Keyfeatures–name,age,hobbies–wererequested,but freedomwasextendedtotheco-designerparticipantsto con-tributeother‘interestingthings’.

aimwastocapturediversity,whilenothavingsomanyas

tobeexcessive,makingithardtoremembereachone.

RefiningandUsingthePersonas.Inallstudies,thepersonas

werethenactivelyprogressedoutsideoftheworkshops,

be-comingmorerefnedintheirdetailsandtheiraesthetic(see

supplementarymaterial).Afterworkshop1,allstudiesused

thepersonasactivelyintheworkshops,leadingto

refne-mentsduetoperceivedshortcomingsbytheco-designers.

Useofthepersonaswasencouragedbyrefectingonwhat

thepersonamightthinkafterdiscussingeachaspectof

de-signortechnologywiththeco-designerparticipants.

Inform,thepersonasbeganashand-writtentextonpaper

orwhiteboardinthefrstsession,thenprogressedthrough

variousversionsdevelopedinagraphicspackageandprinted

outfortheworkshops.Thepersonasweretheneditedas

andwhentheneedarose:werealisedthatsometimesthey

werenotftforpurpose(e.g.,theymightmissakeydetail

abouttheirtechnologyuse),soadaptionsweremadeasthe

sessionsprogressed,e.g.withamarkerpen.Thepersonas

werere-introducedbriefytotheco-designerparticipants

eachtimetheywereusedinallthreestudies,andthe

co-designerparticipantscouldmakeeditstothembeforeuse.

Numerousiterationsofvisualandtextdesignwereexplored

tomakethemasaccessibleaspossible.

DataCollectionandAnalysis

Allco-designworkshopswererecorded.Thisresultedin18

hoursofvideodataforstudy1(Parkinson’sdisease),15hours

ofvideodataforstudy2(dementia)and10hoursofaudio

andvideodata forstudy3(aphasia).Athematicanalysis

ofthesedatawasundertakentoinvestigatetheco-creation,

Theanalysisbeganwithabottom-upinvestigationof

head-linedatafromtheco-designworkshops.Wecreatedaninitial

setof‘super-codes’toinvestigatethedataanddeveloped

emergentcodeswhenapplicable.Weappliedtheemergent

codesindetailtoasampleofthevideodatainorderto

re-fnethecodes.Thiscode-setwasthenre-appliedtothedata

iterativelytounderstanditsmainthemes,andwhomandto

whichpartoftheprocesseachcodereferredto.Datawere

codedbasedonconversationalturnandweconsidered

satu-rationtohaveoccurredwhennomorecodesemerged,which

Aldiabatetal.[2]describeas“codesaturation”.Codeswere

notmutuallyexclusive–thatis,super-codesandcodescould

overlap.Forexample,whileaco-designerwasevaluating

howwellaninteractiontechniqueworked(Evaluationinthe

DesignProcesssuper-code),apersonamightbebeingused

as‘shorthand’bysomeonewhohadtroubleremembering

(ShorthandintheAfordancesuper-code),whilstalsobeing

usedtocritiqueaspecifcaspectofadesign(Critiquingin

theAfordancesuper-code).Thetwofrstauthorsapplied

thecodes,creatinganddiscussingthemtoensure

consis-tency,andconsideringdiferencesandcommonalities.All

datawerecodedinNVivobythesetwomaincoders.

4 FINDINGS

The

canbefoundinTable1.Thesedescribetheparticularthemes

thatwefoundaroundthepotentialafordancesofthe

per-sonas,thealterationsmadetothepersonas(andwhythey

weremade)alongwiththevariousattribution-baseddata

requiredtopinpointwhocontributedeachpieceof

infor-mation.Severalover-archingthemesemergedasaresultof

thisanalysis.Wewillnowreportanddescribethesethemes

andhowtheyrelatetoourdatainthecontextofourcodes

-supportedbyspecifcquotesfromthedata.

main set of codes which arose from analysis of the data

BroadeningofDemographic

A

graphic(code:BroadenDemographic),to beyondthose in

theworkshop–appearedtobesuccessfulinstudy3with

peoplewithaphasia.Personasweremostcommonlyusedto

broadenthedemographicduringactivitiesinwhichwewere

discussingelementsofthetechnology,withthepersonas

beingusedequallyindesignideationandevaluation.Thisis

unsurprisingbecausethiswastheirintendedpurpose.For

example,oneco-designerwithmilderaphasiafoundtheapp

beingdevelopedwasaimedatsomeonewithmoresevere

aphasiaandused‘Anne’toconsiderpeoplewithmoresevere

aphasia:“Shewouldfnditveryhelpful,becauseshe–ifshe

couldreadoutlouditwouldmeanthatshecouldrecognise

words.Itwouldmeanthatshecouldreadsomethingbutshe

couldnotretaininhermemory”(Neil).Discussionsaround

thepersonasalsoallowedotherco-designerstocontribute

stated aim of using the personas – broadening the

demo-potentialsolutions.WhendiscussingthepersonaCharlotte,

forexample,Oscarnotedthatifshefoundusingwordclouds

toocomplex,thenpicturescould beused: “Well. Youcan

putsomepicturein.Thatwouldhelp.Picturewillmakemany words.".

Oncethepersonaswereestablished,itwasclearthat

some-timestheco-designerresearchers,whenaskingabouta

par-ticularaspectofthesystem,didnotalwaysneedtoexplicitly

ask“Howwasthisforthepersona?”.Aftersomeuse,with

thepersonaonthetableinfrontofthem,co-designer

par-ticipantswouldmakeuseofitwithoutanycuing–clearly

becomingmorecognisantofthepersona,whichhadbecome

naturallyembeddedintothesession.Forexample,whenNeil

wasaskedhowhefoundarrangingthewordsintheapp,he

responded:“Idid,butifIcouldn’tIwouldfnditdifcult".

InStudy2,co-designer participantsmirroredthe

com-positionoftheirgroupofpeoplewithdementiaandtheir

informalcarersinthepersonas.Whatwasunexpectedwas

howtheycraftedawholefamily,developingatertiary

per-sonaofEnid.Thisbroadenedthedemographicconsiderably

bycreatingapersonaforausergroupthatwasnot

actu-allyincludedintheco-designactivities.Suggesting,perhaps,

thattheywerenotsimplyrespondingtotheworkshop,but

reactingtoandshapingtheprocess.Thiswassousefulthat

inStudy1,co-designerresearchersgaveco-designer

partici-pantsthepersonasofVeraandEnidtoadapttotheirneeds,

thuscreatingadditionalpersonasthatrefectedtheirwider

carenetworkandbroadeningtherangeofstakeholders.

EmpowermentofCo-Designer-Participant

Inallstudies,weintroducedthepersonageneration

activ-ityearlyto ensurethatwecouldusethepersonas when

makingkeydesigndecisions.Unknowingly,weallowedour

co-designerparticipantstobecomemorefamiliarwith‘being

designers’,beforetheywereevenmakingdesigndecisions

aboutthesystemtheywereco-designing.Allstudiesnoted

increasingconfdenceonthepartofco-designerparticipants

throughouttheintroductorycreationofthepersonas,

cap-turedinstatementscodedasAlterationtoPersona.

InStudy1,co-designerparticipantswereextremely

en-gagedwiththeco-creationofthepersonas,givenonly

min-imalinstructions.Theirengagementwasaccompaniedby

playfulnessandhumour,withtheco-designerparticipants

workingtogetheranddrawingontheirlivedexperienceto

createprimaryandsecondarypersonasandtofeshthemout.

Forexample,whenaskedhowtonameoneofthepersonas,

Prabhusaid–“Let’scallhimShakingSteven” referringto

1980sUKpopstarShakin’Stevens.Garethalsosuggested

includinga“beerfridge”inSteven’stechnologyashismain

activitywastobrewhisownbeer.

InStudy2,co-designerparticipantsweresoengagedwith

Super-Code Code Defnition

Afordance AfordsStrawman

BroadenDemographic

CreatesEmpathy

CreatesSympathy

Critiquing

RoleChange

Shorthand

The The The The The The The

persona persona persona persona persona persona persona

allowssomeonetocritiquesomethingtheymaynotfeelcomfortablewith isusedtoencompassawidersetofimpairments,perspectivesoropinions allowssomeonetorelatetothemselves

isfeltsorryforbysomeone

isbeingusedtodirectlycritiqueanaspectofasystem enablessomeonetomoreactivelybecomeadesigner

allowsforacomplexdescriptionofsomethingtobereferredtoquickly AlterationtoPersona EmpoweringDetails

GeneralDetails

PragmaticAlteration

SpecifctoUserGroup

The The The The

alteration alteration alteration alteration

tothepersonaisempoweringthepersona tothepersonaisgeneric

ismadeduetoalogicalinconsistencyinthepersona madetothepersonaisspecifctotheusergroup

Attribution “I”Statement

PersonaNameStatement

The

Thepersonpersonisistalkingtalkingaboutaboutatheirpersona’sperspectiveperspectiveonsomethingonsomething

DesignProcess Design

Evaluation Ideation

The The The

persona persona persona

facilitates facilitates facilitates

anidearelatingto aformofusability anidearelatingto

thedesignofaspecifcfeature testingwithasystem aconceptualdesignidea

Perspective Saidby

Agreed

Saidby

Co-DesignerParticipant

byCo-DesignerParticipant

Co-DesignerResearcher

Theco-designersaidit Itwasagreedbytheco-designer Theresearchersaidit

Table1:Codescreatedfrombottom-upinvestigationofdata.

werepleasantlysurprisedathowwelltheycouldremember

thepersonas’detailsandcharacteristics.June(George’s

in-formalcarerandpartner)said–“IcannotbelievethatGeorge

rememberseverythingaboutFred,youknowhiscondition de-terioratesandhecan’tevenrememberwhatheateyesterday [...]soIcannotbelievethatheremembersallthesethings”.

InStudy3therewasabriefreluctanceandasenseof

mi-norconfusionwhenmakingdecisionsaboutthepersonas.

Manyoftheresponsesinitiallydefningfeaturesofthe

per-sonaswereposedasquestions.Forexample,Elizabethwould

initiallybeginphrasingthedetailsaboutthepersonasas

questions.Forexample,whenchoosingCharlotte’sname:

“Charlotte?”.Thissuggestedthat–perhaps–theco-designer

participantswithaphasiawerenotparticularlyconfdentin

theirroleasdesigners.Thislackofconfdencefadedwithin

thefrstsession,andshe–andtherestoftheco-designer

participants–becamemoreassertiveinstatingand

debat-ingthedecisionsthattheymade.Aftertwosessions,the

co-designerparticipantsshowedafectiontotheprocessand

showednoreservationaboutrecommendingadjustmentsto

theapporthepersonas.Forexample,Elizabethshowedhow

shebegantoenjoytheprocessasitcontinued,andrefected

ontheprocesspositively:“It’slikefunny.Becausewechange

thenameintooldinsteadofyounger.Maybewechangemale

tofemale.[...]Wecreatethepersona.Tohelpthepeoplehave

stroke.Withaphasia.Andcanhelpthemtocommunicateby

usingtechnology”.

EnhancedEaseofCommunication

Utilisingthepersonasasameansforcommunication(code:

Shorthand)wasamajorthemethatemergedfromthe

anal-ysisofthedatainstudy3.Itwasapparentthat,throughout

theprocess,thepersonasallowedtheco-designer

partici-pantswithaphasiatooptimisetheiruseoflanguagerather

thanhavingtouseextensivelanguagetoarticulatea

partic-ularthought.TheShorthandcodeoftencoincidedwiththe

PersonaNameStatement code,indicatingthatthepersona

workedasausefulwayofsummarisinginformationquickly.

Thisalsoaidedco-designerparticipantsinmaking

recom-mendationsabouthowtheaestheticofthepersonascouldbe

changedtomakethemmoresuitableforusebypeoplewith

aphasia.Thepersonasweredesignedwithlotsofgraphics

andverysimpletextualdescriptions.

Theco-designerparticipantswould,forexample,

some-timesgesturetowardsaparticularpartofthephysical

per-sonato convey some information aboutwhat theywere

explaining.Thepersonawasmostcommonlyusedasaquick

methodtorefertoanimpairmenttoconsiderwhatcouldor

couldnotbedonebyaperson.Forexample,Annie’spersona

statesthatshestruggleswithreadingandwriting,butfnds

thatreadingoutloudhelpsheralot.Thisallowedoneof

theco-designerparticipants(Neil)toquicklyarticulatehow

othersmightutilisetheapplicationdiferentlybyreferring

tothevisualpersona–“ifshecouldreadoutloud[...]she

couldrecognisewords”.

InStudy2,co-designerparticipantsreferredtospecifc

symptomsoftheirimpairment.Forexample,Georgetriedto

highlightthedifcultyofkeepingadiarywithhisthoughts

bysaying–“IthinkFredshouldusethedragonnatural

speak-ing,I thinkitwillhelphimto keepa diarywith hisgoals [...]andactivities.Iamusingit[...]Irecordmythoughtsand thenIlistenbacktothemsoIcanrememberthem”.Wenoted

thesameapproachinStudy1.Co-designerparticipants

sug-gestedthatintegratingvoicerecognitionintothesmarthome

toolkitwouldhelpthemtosetuptheirlifeplanmoreeasily.

Adamsaid–“Pathasavoicerecognitionsystembothatwork andhome,maybeitdoesreallyhelpher.Itwouldhelpustoo”.

Further,wenotedthatthepersonawasalsousedinthis

‘shorthand’waytogenerateideasadjacenttothemain

feed-backthatweweregettingontheappinstudy3,orindeed

tocreatecompletelynewdesignpossibilities(ideating).

Af-terusingthecreativewritingapp,oneco-designerquickly

referredtotheJimmypersonain orderto share theidea

ofcreatinganapplicationwhichisabletoassistwiththe

generationofmusic,insteadofcreativewriting- “Canuse...

butmaybewechangewithmusic?[insteadofwords]...Yeah?”

(Elizabeth).Thisallowedtheco-designertolowertheburden

ofexplainingthe–quitecomplex–conceptofhowthismay

beappliedtothemusicdomain,byreferringtotheappin

thecontextofJimmy’spassionformusicthroughtheshared

understandingthatwewerediscussingJimmy.

DiferentCritiquingStyles

InStudy1,co-designerparticipantsdidnotexplicitlyusethe

personastocritique(code:Critiquing)specifcfeaturesofthe

smarthometoolkit.Insteadtheyreferredtothemselvesand

theirpersonalopinionstoevaluatethenewtechnology.For

example,whenaskedtoevaluatethenewtechnology,Adam

said–“Icanseehowthissmarthometechnologycouldhelp peoplewithdementiabutitisnotforme,Idonothaveany

cognitiveimpairment,maybeinafewyearstime”,whereas

Sarahsaid–“Ilivebymyselfandmaybeonedayinthefuture

itwouldbeusefultohaveameansofsensing,ifIhavehad afall,Iknowtherearebuttonsyoucanpressbutifyouare

notconsciousandcannotpressthebuttonitwouldbegood

tohavesomethingthatmonitorsyouarenotmoving fora

while”.Essentially,insteadofreferringtothepersona(

Per-sonaNameStatementcode),thisusergroupmuchpreferred

todiscusstheirproblems–mostlyusingthe“I”Statement

(code).Wenotedthatco-designerparticipantswith

Parkin-son’sdisease wereuncertainabout thenew smarthome

toolkit:theybelievedthatitwouldbemoreusefultoa

per-sonwithacognitiveimpairment,astheywerethemselves

veryindependentandactive.

InStudy2,however,thiswasdiferent.Co-designer

par-ticipantscritiquedandevaluatedthesmart hometoolkit

throughthepersonas.Whenaskedtocommentonhoweasy

itwas tosetupanewlifeplanusingthetoolkit,George

said–“ThelifeplanshouldbejointlycreatedbyFredand Vera.IwouldexpectFredwouldneedVera’shelpforthat” and "Fredmighthavesomeproblemswithspelling,willthetoolkit recognisewordsthatarenotproperlywritten?".

InStudy3,aftertheco-designerparticipantswithaphasia

hadgiventheirownviewsaboutanaspectofaprototype,

theyalsousedthepersonasefectivelytocritiquethe

pro-totypefromthepersona’sperspective.TheCritiquingcode

wascommonlyusedintandemwithPersonaNameStatement

andwasgenerallySaidbyCo-DesignerParticipant.For

ex-ample,whenweaskedElizabethhowsomeonewithmore

severeissuesspeaking(Charlotte)wouldgetonwithusing

thecreativewritingapp,shewasoptimistic:“er...Shecan

readslow...Ifyouhavepatienceyoucanreaditagainand again.Yeah?”.Thepersonaswerealsousedtocritiquethe app:“IfJohnforexample,sayhehashadhisstrokerecently, hewouldbeverylimitedinwhathecouldsayorproduce.So, itwouldbeverygoodforhim"(Neil).Thepersonaswerealso

usedbytheco-designerparticipantstoengageinIdeation

aboutfeaturesthattheappmighthaveinthefuture.For

ex-ample,whenthinkingofJohn–apersonawithmoresevere

aphasia–usingtheappforcreatingcreativewriting,Neil

notedhissolutionforovercominghisbarriers:“Idoreading

inchurch.WhenIwanttoprepareit...IfIdon’tprepareitis notveryclear.WhenIreadit,Istartedputtinglinesbetween eachphrase.SothatIdon’trunthewordsintoeachother,but

alsotoslowmedown”.Theseideasandsolutionsoftencame

un-cuedduetotheco-designerparticipantsruminatingon

howthepersonawould‘getonwith’something.

Wealsosawamorenuanceduseofthepersonasinthe

data fromstudy 3:therewas evidencethatthepersonas

wereusedasstrawmen(code:AfordsStrawman).Asthe

co-designerparticipantswerediscussingtheapp,itbecame

evidentthatsomeaspectsofthedesignwerechallenging.For

example,likelyduetotiredness,oneco-designerparticipant

clearlyhadissueswiththenumberofwordshehadtoread

andittookhimseveralminutestocompleteafewactions.

HeexplainedthisusingtheJimmypersonaanditisevident

thatthisallowedhimtofeelmoreconfdentincritiquing

anaspectofsystemtothosewhowereresponsibleforits

implementation,withoutexplicitlystatingthathefoundit

challenging:“Soifyoucutitdown,haveJimmymakehislyrics

together...WhenIsawthething...Itistoomuch.Toomanywords for...".

Further,inStudy1,co-designerparticipantshadproblems

completingtheirprofleusinginteractivemock-upsdueto

theirtremor.Paultriedtoexplainwhyitwastakinghimso

longtowritehisname:–“Ithinkthatthetextboxisvery

AtachmenttothePersona

Co-designerparticipantsshowedadegreeofattachmentto

thepersonas.Commonly,theygenerated,orchanged,

fea-turesofthepersonaswhichprotectedthemor‘saved’them

fromtheircurrentsituations.Itwasthereforeoccasionally

challengingtoaddresssomeofthemoreemotionally

com-plexaspectsofacondition.Forexample,whenworkingin

Study3withpeoplewithaphasia,itwaschallengingto

gen-eratean‘independent’personawholivedalone.TheCreates

Sympathycodewascommonlylinkedtoco-designer

par-ticipantsaddingdetails topersona’sGeneralDetails.One

instanceofthiswaswhereaco-designerparticipantshowed

sympathyfortheCharlottepersona:hecouldnotbeartosee

Charlottelivealone,“onething,whenyoutalkabout

Char-lotte...Theysaidthatshewaslivingalone.Ican’tunderstand why...Howanyonewhohasgotastroke,youknow.Youalways needtohavesomeone.So,Idon’tunderstandthat"(Oscar).

Later,healsousedhislifeexperiencetocontextualisethis,

“Sheis74,myfriend.Shefellofthebedandshelivesalone.74. Andshewaslayingonthefoorandnobodycouldhelpher.”.

We alsoobserved that theco-designer participants in

Study3sometimeshowedempathytowardsthepersonas

(code:CreatesEmpathy),asthepersonasenabledthemto

refectontheirownsituation–orindeedthesituationthat

theywereinsoonaftertheirstroke,beforetheybegan

recu-perativetherapy.Neil,forexample,usedhisownexperience,

combinedwithpersonaJohn’sdescriptiontomakeadesign

assessment:“Ifhehadastroke2yearsagohewouldbeable

to...Letmegoback...Myspeechaftermystroke...Icouldn’t getthewordout.So,Isuspectthathewouldbethesame[using theapp].”

InbothStudies1and2,co-designerparticipants

empow-eredtheirpersonasanddecidedtoincludeonlysubtlecues

abouttheconditionsandtheirefects.Evenmoresothan

StevenandPat,Fredappearstobecarryingonasusualas

muchaspossible,tryingtomaintaintheactivitiesthathe

en-joys.However,duringdiscussionsintheworkshop,itcame

tolightthatinreallifethechallengesoflivingwithdementia

arenumerous,forexample:“Ifnditquitedifculttomanage

money–can’tbetrustednottospendallofit–soIcan’ttake acreditcardto[alocalDIY]shopanymore”(George).

Anotherfndingwasthatco-designerparticipantsinStudy

1addedevenmoretechnologytoPat’spersona,makingher

anextremepersona[16,44]relativelyuntypical,possiblyto

exploretheboundariesofthenewsmarthometoolkit.They

alsoextendedthepersonaswithunanticipatedfacets,

intro-ducingaspectsthatwedidnotinitiallyconsider.Forexample,

theypointedoutthatmentalattitudetowardslivingwith

thediseasehelpsalotinkeepingupwiththedailyactivities

–Prabhusaidthat“Yourpersonalityplaysanimportantrole

inhelpingyoucopewithyourcondition”.

CreationofAspirationalPersonas

Partiallyrelatedtotheattachmentnotedpreviously,and

in-deedforotherreasonsrelatingtothefunofhavingboundless

optionstoexplore,manyoftheco-createdpersonaswere

quiteaspirational.Theyoftenhadcharacteristicswhich

peo-plewithagivenimpairmentmightnothave.Forexample,

inStudy3,mostofthepersonashadjobs,andthecoding

suggeststhatalmostallofthesefeatureswerecontributedby

theco-designerparticipants(code:saidbytheco-designer).

Sadly,thisisnotthecurrentrealityforpeoplewithaphasia.

Forexample,Annie–whohasproblemswithreadingand

writing–worksatalibrary,whichisnotimpossible,but

makesforasomewhatatypicalpersona.

InStudy2,FredandVera,representingpeoplewith

demen-tiaandtheirinformalcarers,alsoappearedtobeaspirational

personas[31],withtheparticipantstrustingthattechnology

willbeabletofacilitatemoredesirableexperiencesinstead

ofday-to-daygoalsandactivities.Apleasantsurprisewas

thefacetstheco-designerparticipantschosetoincludein

thesepersonas.Idealisticfeaturesweregenerated,suchas

thoseforEnid,whoismarriedtoarichhusbandandlivesin

Miami,isverysocial,enjoysshopping,socialisingandhorse

riding.Thepersonawasalsoempoweredthroughherrole

organisinggalastofund-raiseandincreaseawarenessfor

Alzheimer’sdisease,makingheranadvocatetosomedegree.

EvenVera’sgoalsandactivitieshighlightwhatshewould

wanttodo,insteadofwhatsheactuallydoesday–to–day.

Forexample,duringdiscussionsintheworkshopitcameto

lightthatinreallifethechallengesoflivingwithdementia

arenumerous,forexample:“Iambadwithmoney,whichis

abitannoying.Mydaughtercomesdownandsheisbrilliant lookingaftermyfnanceafairs”(Colin).

InStudy3,wefoundthatlogicalconsistenciesinthe

per-sonaswereoftenwhittledoutwithinthedesignprocess.The

analysissuggeststhatmostoftheseamendments,codedas

PragmaticAlterations,camefromtheco-designerresearchers.

Forexample,whenconsideringJimmy’shobbiesitbecame

evidentthatitwouldbechallengingforhimtostillsingin

arhythmandbluesbandduetohislimitedverbaloutput.

Oneco-designerresearcherthereforeconcluded–“Maybe

heusedtosinginarhythmandbluesband...butnowhesings inachoirinstead...”. However,incontrast,inStudy1the

co-designerparticipantsdecidedtoaltertheirpersonasand

gavethemmore‘realistic’characteristics;Paulsuggested

that“Weshouldincludegroomingforprofessionalappearance toPat’sactivitiesassheisaChiefExecutiveforapublichealth sector”.Sarahalsosuggestedthattheyshouldinclude

shav-inganddressingtoSteven’sactivities–“Hewasdiagnosed

5 DISCUSSIONANDREFLECTIONS

Forthemostpart,wefound thepersonasto bepowerful

toolsforengaginguserswithdiverseneedsintheco-design

process.Theco-createdpersonas wereahighly efective

wayofbroadeningtheparticipantpool.Theco-designer

par-ticipantsinallthreestudiesengagedwiththepersonasin

diversebutefectiveways.Wefoundthatdoingtheinitial

scopingofthepersonaswiththeSWIMtechniqueallowed

forthecaptureofrealisticimpairmentsastheywerebased

onrealpeople,thentheadditionoffeaturesenabledthe

co-designerparticipantstobemoreinvestedandfocusedonthe

processastheyexhibitedownershipofthedesignmaterials.

Webelievethattheactofcreatingthepersonaswasavery

efectivetoolfor‘ramping’thedesignersintotheprocess

of‘beingadesigner’.Afundamentaltensioninthedesign

processisco-designerparticipants–whoarenotdesigners

ortechnologistsbyprofession–feelreservedmaking

deci-sionsaboutthedesignoftechnology.Ourapproachaddresses

thistensionofco-designbyusingpersonaco-creationasan

introductoryactivity,inwhichpeoplearedrawnintothe

designprocessgradually,thereforehavemoreconfdence

whenmakingdecisionsabouttechnology.Further,abeneft

ofco-creatingpersonasinthedesignprocess,asopposedto

simplyusingthem,mightbethatwebetterrememberthings

thatweareactivelyengagedin.Ourdataseemedtosuggest

afastlearningprocessandgoodmemoryretentionofthe

persona’sfeatures.Stefensetal.[36]describesthisconcept

inareviewoftheconceptof‘learningbydoing’,notingthat

(withsomeexceptions)enactment,asopposedtoobserving,

improvesonesabilitytorecognisespecifcactions.And

in-deed,leadstosuperiorfreerecallofitems.Theyprovidea

quotefrom[38],whoillustratethispointefectively:“Ineed

todrivetorememberaroute.Iwillremembernothingasa

passenger”.

Theminorvariationsinthemethodbetweenthestudies

weremostlyindicativeofthevariationsintheusergroups

andthetechnologies,however,somevariationshaveofered

insightintowhatworksandwhatdoesnot.InStudies1and

2,breakingupthepersonacreationintosmallerpartswhile

focusingonspecifcfacetsanddrawingontheco-designer

participants’livedexperiencesworkedparticularlywell.In

Study3,weutilisedtheSWIM[43]approachtogeneratethe

personasbyaskingspecifcquestionsaboutarealpersonthat

theco-designerparticipantknew.Thismeantthattheinitial

personashadmoreinformationabouttheirimpairmentsand

likelyresultedinlessidealisedfeaturesforthesepersonas

asthestartingpointwasa‘realperson’.

Oneoftheinitialexpectationsofutilisingco-created

per-sonaswasthat,byworkingdirectlywiththepeoplewiththe

impairments/conditionstocreatethepersonas,theywould

beinsomewaymorerealistic.Inspiredbythe–often

unre-alistic–personaswhichrepresentpeoplewithimpairments,

wefeltthatthepersonasthemselvescouldbeaviable

‘out-put’ofthework,andthattheycouldbeappropriatedby

others.However,wewouldsaythatwehadmixedresults

here.Whilesomeof thepersonasare realistic,others

ap-pearsomewhatidealised.Overthecourseoftheprojects,

thisaroseduetotheco-designerparticipants’sympathyand

empathywiththepersona’s situation.Onrefection,this

mightbeindicativeofthebondbetweentheco-designer

par-ticipantsandthepersonas.Asa‘copingstrategy’,someof

thesefeaturesweresteeredbyco-designerparticipants,and

weremostlykeptincheckbytheco-designerresearchers

andotherco-designerparticipantsalike.Althoughwenote

apotentialtensionhere,werefectontheearlydiscussions

ofpersonaby[30],whonote:thatitischallengingto“have

everystatementinourPersonasgeneratedfromorrelatedto userdataorobservation".Thisnoted,furtherworkmight

explorehowprocessesmightplayamoreformativerolein

guidingmorerealistic,usablepersonasinsuchco-design

processes.

6 CONCLUSION

Inthispaperwehaveconsideredtheco-creationofpersonas

withthreegroupsofuserswithdiverseneedsanddetailed

howwehave utilisedthemintoourco-designwork.We

believethatourworkontheco-creationofpersonaswith

usershas:

• broadenedthedemographicbeyondasmallteamof

co-designerstoincludepeoplewithdiversehealthneeds;

• fosteredempathy,sympathyandmemorabilitywithin

theco-designprocess;

• ofered‘ramping’intothedesignprocessofbeinga

designerfornon-designers;and

• enabledeaseofcommunicationthroughavisualprop,

andawaybywhichusersmightmoreefectively

criti-cisedesignsbyusingthepersonaasproxy.

Webelievetheuseofpersonasasdescribedinthispaper

mightofernewopportunitiestoengageunder-represented

anddiversegroupsofusersinthedesignprocess,with

pow-erfulscopeforexpansion.

7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Wewouldliketothankalltheco-designerparticipantsfor

theirinvolvement.TheINCAprojectwasfundedbyEPSRC

EP/P025587/1andtheSCAMPIprojectwasfundedbyEPSRC

EP/P010024/1.Finally,wethankanonymousreviewersfor

REFERENCES

[1] TamaraAdlinandJohnPruitt.2010. Theessentialpersonalifecycle:

Yourguidetobuildingandusingpersonas.MorganKaufmann.

[2] KhaldounMAldiabat,LeNavenec,etal.2018.Datasaturation:The mysteriousstepingroundedtheorymethod.TheQualitativeReport 23,1(2018),245–261.

[3] Aphasia.org.2018. NationalAphasiaOrganization. https://www. aphasia.org/

[4] BlomquistandMattiasArvola.2002.PersonasinAction:Ethnography inanInteractionDesignTeam.InProceedingsoftheSecondNordic

ConferenceonHuman-computerInteraction(NordiCHI’02).ACM,New

York,NY,USA,197–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/572020.572044 [5] SusanneBødkerandOleSejerIversen.2002.Stagingaprofessional

participatorydesignpractice:movingPDbeyondtheinitialfascination ofuserinvolvement.InProceedingsofthesecondNordicconferenceon

Human-computerinteraction.ACM,11–18. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/

572020.572023

[6] KirstenBoehner,JanetVertesi,PhoebeSengers,andPaulDourish.2007. HowHCIInterpretstheProbes.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConference

onHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(CHI’07).ACM,NewYork,

NY,USA,1077–1086. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240789 [7] AikateriniBourazeriandSimoneStumpf.2018.Co-DesigningSmart

HomeTechnologywithPeoplewithDementiaorParkinson’sDisease.

InProceedingsofthe10thNordiCHIConference. https://doi.org/10.

1145/3240167.3240197

[8] PamelaBriggs,PatrickOlivier,andJimKitson.2009.FilmAsInvisible Design:TheExampleoftheBiometricDaemon.InCHI’09Extended

Ab-stractsonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(CHIEA’09).ACM,New

York,NY,USA,3511–3512. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520517 [9] JacobBuurandSusanneBødker.2000.Fromusabilitylabto‘design collaboratorium’:reframingusabilitypractice.InProceedingsofthe

3rdconferenceonDesigninginteractivesystems:processes,practices,

methods,andtechniques.ACM,297–307. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/

347642.347768

[10]DanielGCabrero,HeikeWinschiers-Theophilus,Jose Abdelnour-Nocera,andGereonKochKapuire.2016.Ahermeneuticinquiryinto user-createdpersonasindiferentNamibianlocales.InProceedingsof

the14thParticipatoryDesignConference:Fullpapers-Volume1.ACM,

101–110.

[11]AlanCooperetal.2004. Theinmatesarerunningtheasylum:[Why

high-techproductsdriveuscrazyandhowtorestorethesanity].Sams

Indianapolis.

[12]ErinFriess.2012.Personasanddecisionmakinginthedesignprocess: anethnographiccasestudy.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConference

onHumanFactorsinComputingSystems.ACM,1209–1218. http:

//doi.acm.org/10.1145/2207676.2208572

[13]JuliaGalliers,StephanieWilson,JaneMarshall,RichardTalbot, Ni-amhDevane,TraceyBooth,CeliaWoolf,andHelenGreenwood.2017. ExperiencingEVAPark,aMulti-UserVirtualWorldforPeoplewith Aphasia. ACMTrans.Access.Comput.10,4,Article15(Oct.2017), 24pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3134227

[14]BillGaver,TonyDunne,andElenaPacenti.1999. Design:cultural probes. interactions6,1(1999),21–29. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/ 291224.291235

[15]TrishaGreenhalgh,ClaireJackson,SaraShaw,andTinaJanamian.2016. Achievingresearchimpactthroughco-creationincommunity-based healthservices:literaturereviewandcasestudy.TheMilbankQuarterly 94,2(2016),392–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12197 [16]ZahidHussain,MartinLechner,HaraldMilchrahm,SaraShahzad,

WolfgangSlany,MartinUmgeher,andPeterWolkerstorfer.2008.Agile user-centereddesignappliedtoamobilemultimediastreaming applica-tion.InSymposiumoftheAustrianHCIandUsabilityEngineeringGroup.

Springer,313–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_22 [17] AgeInternational.2018.GlobalAgeing. https://www.ageinternational.

org.uk/policy-research/statistics/global-ageing/

[18] Alzheimer’sDiseaseInternational.2018.Dementia:TheFacts. https: //www.alz.co.uk/world-alzheimers-month/dementia-facts

[19] Parkinsons International. 2018. Understanding Parkinsons: Statistics. http://parkinson.org/Understanding-Parkinsons/ Causes-and-Statistics/Statistics

[20] StephenLindsay,KatieBrittain,DanielJackson,CassimLadha,Karim Ladha,andPatrickOlivier.2012.Empathy,participatorydesignand peoplewithdementia.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceon

HumanFactorsinComputingSystems.ACM,521–530. http://doi.acm.

org/10.1145/2207676.2207749

[21] StephenLindsay,DanielJackson,GuySchofeld,andPatrickOlivier. 2012.Engagingolderpeopleusingparticipatorydesign.InProceedings

oftheSIGCHIconferenceonhumanfactorsincomputingsystems.ACM,

1199–1208. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2207676.2208570

[22] TaraMatthews,TejinderJudge,andSteveWhittaker.2012.Howdo designersanduserexperienceprofessionalsactuallyperceiveanduse personas?.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIconferenceonhumanfactors

incomputingsystems.ACM,1219–1228. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/

2207676.2208573

[23] JenniferJenMcGinnandNaliniKotamraju.2008.Data-drivenpersona development.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceonHumanFactors

inComputingSystems.ACM,1521–1524. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/

1357054.1357292

[24] RoisinMcNaney,MadelineBalaam,AmeyHolden,GuySchofeld, DanielJackson,MaryWebster,BrookGalna,GillianBarry,Lynn Rochester,andPatrickOlivier.2015. Designingforandwith Peo-plewithParkinson’s:AFocusonExergaming.InProceedingsofthe

33rdannualACMconferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems.

ACM,501–510. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2702123.2702310 [25] ValMitchell,TracyRoss,AndrewMay,RuthSims,andChristopher

Parker.2016.Empiricalinvestigationoftheimpactofusingco-design methodswhengeneratingproposalsforsustainabletravelsolutions.

CoDesign12,4(2016),205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.

1091894

[26] ClaudiaMüller,DominikHornung,TheodorHamm,andVolkerWulf. 2015.Practice-basedDesignofaNeighborhoodPortal:Focusingon ElderlyTenantsinaCityQuarterLivingLab.InProceedingsofthe33rd

AnnualACMConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems(CHI

’15).ACM,NewYork,NY,USA,2295–2304. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 2702123.2702449

[27] TimothyNeate,AbiRoper,StephanieWilson,andJaneMarshall.2019. EmpoweringExpressionforUserswithAphasiathroughConstrained Creativity.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceonHumanFactors

inComputingSystems.ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300615

[28] LeneNielsen.2011. Personasinco-creationandco-design.In

Pro-ceedingsofthe11thHuman-ComputerInteractionResearchSymposium.

38–40.

[29] VictoriaJanePalmer,WayneWeavell,RosemaryCallander,Donella Piper,LauralieRichard,LynneMaher,HilaryBoyd,HelenHerrman, JohnFurler,JaneGunn,RickIedema,andGlennRobert.2018.The Par-ticipatoryZeitgeist:anexplanatorytheoreticalmodelofchangeinan eraofcoproductionandcodesigninhealthcareimprovement.Medical

Humanities(2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2017-011398

[30] JohnPruittandJonathanGrudin.2003.Personas:practiceandtheory. InProceedingsofthe2003conferenceonDesigningforuserexperiences. ACM,1–15. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/997078.997089

CHIConferenceExtendedAbstractsonHumanFactorsinComputing

Systems.ACM,933–941. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/3027063.3053355

[32]LouiseRobinson,KatieBrittain,StephenLindsay,DanJackson,and PatrickOlivier.2009. KeepingInTouchEveryday(KITE)project: developingassistivetechnologieswithpeoplewithdementiaandtheir carerstopromoteindependence.InternationalPsychogeriatrics21,3 (2009),494–502. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610209008448 [33]AbiRoper,JaneMarshall,andStephanieWilson.2016.Beneftsand

limitationsofcomputergesturetherapyfortherehabilitationofsevere aphasia.Frontiersinhumanneuroscience10(2016),595. https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5126070/

[34]ElizabethB-NSandersandPieterJanStappers.2008.Co-creationand thenewlandscapesofdesign.Co-design4,1(2008),5–18.

[35]RashmiSinha.2003. PersonaDevelopmentfor Information-rich Domains.InCHI’03ExtendedAbstractsonHumanFactorsin

Com-putingSystems(CHIEA’03).ACM,NewYork,NY,USA,830–831.

https://doi.org/10.1145/765891.766017

[36]MelanieCStefens,RulvonStülpnagel,andJanetteCSchult.2015. Memory recall after“learning bydoing”and “learningby view-ing”:Boundaryconditionsofanenactmentbeneft.Frontiersin

psy-chology6(2015),1907. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/

PMC4681778/

[37]HelenaSustar,SimonBowen,AndyDearden,MarkFisher,andDan Wolstenholme.2013.Usingpopularculturetoenablehealthservice co-designwithyoungpeople.EAD(2013). http://shura.shu.ac.uk/6688/ [38]RulvonStülpnagelandMelanieCStefens.[n.d.]. Activeroute learninginvirtualenvironments:disentanglingmovementcontrol fromintention,instructionspecifcity,andnavigationcontrol.

Psy-chologicalresearch77,5([n.d.]),555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s00426-012-0451-y

[39]JayneWallace,AnjaThieme,GavinWood,GuySchofeld,andPatrick Olivier.2012.Enablingself,intimacyandasenseofhomeindementia: anenquiryintodesigninahospitalsetting.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHI

ConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputingSystems.ACM,2629–2638.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208654

[40] JayneWallace,PeterCWright,JohnMcCarthy,DavidPhilipGreen, JamesThomas,andPatrickOlivier.2013.Adesign-ledinquiryinto personhoodindementia.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceon

HumanFactorsinComputingSystems.ACM,2617–2626. https://doi.

org/10.1145/2470654.2481363

[41] PontusWärnestål,PetraSvedberg,SusanneLindberg,andJensM Nygren.2017.Efectsofusingchildpersonasinthedevelopmentofa digitalpeersupportserviceforchildhoodcancersurvivors.Journalof medicalInternetresearch19,5(2017). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7175 [42] IrithWilliams,MargotBrereton,JaredDonovan,Karalyn McDon-ald,TanyaMillard,AlexTam,andJulianHElliott.2014. A col-laborativerapidpersona-buildingworkshop:creatingdesign per-sonaswithhealthresearchers.InternationalJournalof

Sociotechnol-ogyandKnowledgeDevelopment(IJSKD)6,2(2014),17–35. https:

//doi.org/10.4018/ijskd.2014040102

[43] StephanieWilson,AbiRoper,JaneMarshall,JuliaGalliers,Niamh Devane,TraceyBooth,andCeliaWoolf.2015. Codesignforpeople withaphasiathroughtangibledesignlanguages.CoDesign11,1(2015), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.997744

[44] PeterWolkerstorfer,Manfred Tscheligi, Reinhard Sefelin,Harald Milchrahm,ZahidHussain,MartinLechner,andSaraShahzad.2008. Probinganagileusabilityprocess.InCHI’08ExtendedAbstractson

HumanFactorsinComputing Systems.ACM,2151–2158. https:

//doi.org/10.1145/1358628.1358648

[45] LWoods,ECummings,JDuf,andKWalker.2018.ConceptualDesign andIterativeDevelopmentofamHealthAppbyClinicians,Patients andTheirFamilies.Studiesinhealthtechnologyandinformatics252 (2018),170–175. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30040701 [46] PeterWrightandJohnMcCarthy.2008.Empathyandexperiencein

HCI.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceonHumanFactorsin

ComputingSystems.ACM,637–646. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.