[kde-guidelines] Styleguide, Section 1 (Vision, Persona, Scenario)

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 03.02.2014 14:26, Heiko Tietze wrote:
> On Monday 03 February 2014, 13:58:24 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Summing it up: I would love to keep to ammount of personas as small as
>>> possible - I think this would even help to reach more consistency
>>
>> Sure. I don't think we'll have that many distinct types of users anyway,
>> so I think that goal can be reached either way. I assume we'll end up
>> with maybe around five personas or so.
>> I just think that if one wants to make e.g. a software for instant
>> messaging in the workplace, a persona for "An office worker who uses our
>> software at his workplace, but not for his primary task" would be more
>> helpful than a persona for "a person who uses instant messaging",
>> because the former could be used for a whole range of applications,
>> where the context is always the same.
>
> The office is part of the scenario! Berna (the first persona), is smart but not
> tech-savvy. She does not want to care about technological background. Her
> occupation in an office brings her in contact with Calligra & co. She has a few
> contacts to whom she wants to chat in the afternoon. No problem at all.

On the one hand, it is. On the other hand, I can imagine someone who 
knows KDE software only from work being different from someone who uses 
our software at home. They probably have different background, different 
motivation (someone using our software out of interest instead of 
because she has to is presumably more motivated to learn stuff) etc. Of 
course for someone who uses our software both at home and at the office, 
both are part of different scenarios but the persona is the same.

> To dump a different call: Why do we need more than two personas? Of course,
> KStars or Krita have different audience, but in general it might be enough.
> Microsoft describes, as far as I know, the users of Windows by four personas.

I would not limit the number beforehand, but yes, maybe we end up with 
two, maybe we'll need a few more. We'll see.