User Research Is Storytelling

I’ve been fascinated by shows since I was a child. I loved the figures and the excitement—but most of all the reports. I aspired to be an artist. And I hoped that I would have the same opportunities as Indiana Jones did, leading to interesting adventures. I also dreamed up suggestions for videos that my friends and I could render and sun in. But they never advanced. However, I did end up in the user experience ( UX) field. Today, I realize that there’s an element of drama to UX— I hadn’t actually considered it before, but consumer research is story. And you must show a compelling story to entice stakeholders, such as the product team and decision-makers, to learn more in order to get the most out of consumer research.

Think about your favourite film. More than likely it follows a three-act construction that’s frequently seen in story: the layout, the fight, and the quality. The second act provides an overview of the current events and allows you to understand the characters, their difficulties, and problems. The fight begins in Act 2, which introduces the issue. Here, issues grow or get worse. The solution is the third and final work. The figures learn and change as a result of the resolutions and issues are resolved. I believe that this architecture is also a great way to think about customer study, and I think that it can be particularly helpful in explaining person exploration to others.

Use story as a framework for conducting research

Unfortunately, some people now believe that study is unprofitable. If finances or timelines are small, analysis tends to be one of the first points to go. Some goods managers rely on designers or, worse, their own mind to make the “right” decisions for users based on their own knowledge or accepted best practices rather than investing in research. That may lead some groups, but that approach can so easily miss the chance to solve people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. User study improves pattern. It keeps it on track by pointing out issues and prospects. Being aware of the issues with your product and reacting to them can help you stay away of your competition.

Each action in the three-act structure is crucial to telling the complete story, and each action corresponds to a specific stage of the process. Let’s take a look at the various functions and how they relate to consumer study.

Act one: layout

The setup consists entirely in comprehending the history, and that’s where basic research comes in. Basic research ( also known as conceptual, discovery, or preliminary research ) aids in understanding users and identifying their issues. You’re learning about what exists now, the obstacles people have, and how the problems affect them—just like in the videos. You can conduct contextual inquiries or diary studies ( or both! ) to conduct foundational research. ), which may assist you in identifying both challenges and options. It doesn’t need to get a great investment in time or money.

Erika Hall discusses the most effective anthropology, which can be as straightforward as spending 15 hours with a customer and asking them to” Walk me through your morning yesterday.” That is it. Current that one ask. Locked up and spend fifteen minutes listening to them. Do everything in your power to keep yourself and your pursuits out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. Hall predicts that “[This ] will probably prove quite fascinating. In the unlikely event that you don’t learn anything new or helpful, move on with more self-assurance in your direction.

This makes total sense to me. And I adore how users research is now so simple. You can only attract participants and do it! You don’t need to create a lot of documentation. This can offer a wealth of knowledge about your customers, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their life. Understanding where people are coming from is what action one is really all about.

Jared Spool discusses the significance of basic research and how it may make up the majority of your study. If you can pick from any further user data that you can get your hands on, such as surveys or analytics, that can complement what you’ve heard in the fundamental studies or even time to areas that need more research. All of this information helps to reveal both the state of items and its flaws more clearly. And that’s the start of a gripping tale. It’s the place in the story where you realize that the principal characters—or the people in this case—are facing issues that they need to conquer. This is where you begin to develop compassion for the characters and support their success, much like in films. And hey, it looks like everyone else is doing the same. Their love may be with their company, which could be losing wealth because people didn’t complete certain tasks. Or perhaps they feel the challenges of the customers. In either case, work one serves as your main strategy to pique the interest and interest of the participants.

When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making approach. And that can help product teams become more user-centric. Everyone benefits from this, including the product, stakeholders, and users. It’s like winning an Oscar in movie terms—it often leads to your product being well received and successful. And this might encourage stakeholders to carry out this process with additional products. The secret to this process is storytelling, and knowing how to tell a compelling story is the only way to entice stakeholders to do more research.

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about approving the issues you raised in act one. This usually involves directional research, such as usability tests, where you assess a potential solution ( such as a design ) to see whether it addresses the issues that you found. Unmet needs or issues with a flow or process that is causing users to flee could be the causes. Additional problems will arise in the course of act two of a film. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act.

According to Jakob Nielsen, five users should be typically in usability tests, which means that this number of users can typically identify the majority of the issues:” As you add more and more users, you learn less and less because you will keep seeing the same things again and again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by observing the same findings repeatedly but not learning much new.”

The plot may become lost if you try to tell a story with too many characters, which is similar to storytelling in this case. Having fewer participants means that each user’s struggles will be more memorable and easier to relay to other stakeholders when talking about the research. This can help to convey the problems that need to be solved while also highlighting the worth of conducting research in the first place.

Usability tests have been conducted in person for decades, but you can also do them remotely using software like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You might interpret in-person usability tests as a form of theater watching as opposed to remote testing. Each has advantages and disadvantages. In-person usability research is a much richer experience. The sessions are conducted with other stakeholders in mind. Additionally, you get real-time reactions, including surprises, disagreements, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors ‘ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If conducting usability testing in the field is like watching a play that is staged and controlled, where any two sessions may be very different from one another. You can conduct usability testing in the real world by creating a replica of the environment where users interact with the product and conducting your research there. Or you can go out to meet users at their location to do your research. With either option, you can see how things work in context, how things develop, and how conversion can take a completely different turn. You have less control over how these sessions end as researchers, but this can occasionally help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. In-person usability tests add a level of detail that remote usability tests frequently lack.

That doesn’t mean that the “movies” —remote sessions—aren’t a good option. Remote sessions can reach a wider audience. They make it possible for much more people to participate in the research and learn what’s happening. Additionally, they make the doors accessible to a much wider range of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working.

You can ask real users questions to understand their thoughts and understanding of the solution as a result of usability testing, whether it is conducted remotely or in person. This can help you identify issues as well as understand why they were initially issues. Furthermore, you can test hypotheses and gauge whether your thinking is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll be able to see for yourself whether the designs are useful and effective. The excitement centers on Act 2, but there are also potential surprises in that Act. This is equally true of usability tests. Sometimes, participants will say unexpected things that alter the way you look at them, which can lead to unexpected turns in the story.

Unfortunately, user research can occasionally be viewed as unreliable. And too often usability testing is the only research process that some stakeholders think that they ever need. In fact, if the designs you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a thorough understanding of your users ( foundational research ), there isn’t much to be gained by conducting usability testing in the first place. Because you’re narrowing the scope of what you’re receiving feedback on without understanding the needs of the users. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. In the context of a usability test, it’s just feedback on a particular design.

On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, you won’t know whether the thing you’re building will actually solve that problem, despite the fact that you might have set out to solve the right problem. This illustrates the importance of doing both foundational and directional research.

In act two, stakeholders will hopefully be able to observe the user sessions ‘ development, which exposes the conflict and tension in the current design’s highs and lows. And in turn, this can encourage stakeholders to take action on the issues raised.

Act three: resolution

The third act is about resolving the issues from the first two acts, while the first two acts are about understanding the background and the tensions that can compel stakeholders to take action. While the first two acts require an audience, the final act requires that they remain engaged throughout. That means the whole product team, including developers, UX practitioners, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other stakeholders that have a say in the next steps. It allows the entire team to discuss what is possible within the project’s constraints, ask questions, and discuss user feedback together. And it gives the UX design and research teams more time to clarify, suggest alternatives, or provide more context for their choices. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

Voiceover narration of this act is typically used with audience input. The researcher serves as the narrator, who depicts the issues and what the product’s potential future might look like given what the team has learned. They give the stakeholders their recommendations and their guidance on creating this vision.

In the Harvard Business Review, Nancy Duarte describes a method for structuring presentations that follow a persuasive narrative. The most effective presenters employ the same methods as great storytellers: By reaffirming the status quo and then revealing a better way, they create a conflict that needs to be resolved, writes Duarte. ” That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently”.

This kind of structure is in line with research findings, particularly those from usability tests. It provides evidence for “what is “—the problems that you’ve identified. And your suggestions for how to deal with them are “what could be.” And so forth and forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be visual, like quick sketches of how a new design could look that solves a problem. These can help create momentum and conversation. And this continues until the end of the session when you’ve wrapped everything up in the conclusion by summarizing the main issues and suggesting a way forward. The part where you make a second or third reference to the main themes or issues or concerns for the product is when you make the denouement of the story. The stakeholders will now have the opportunity to take the next steps, and hopefully the will-power to do so!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. The three-act structure of user research contains all the components for a good story:

Act one: You encounter both the users and the antagonists ( the issues affecting users ). This is the beginning of the plot. Researchers might employ techniques like contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics in act one. These techniques can produce personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards as output.

Act two: Next, there’s character development. The protagonists encounter problems and challenges, which they must overcome, and there is conflict and tension. Researchers might use heuristics evaluation, usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and other methods in act two. The output of these can include usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices.

Act three: The main characters win, and the audience is shown a better future. Researchers may use techniques like storytelling, presentation decks, and digital media in act three. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures.

The researcher performs a number of tasks: they are the producer, the director, and the storyteller. Although the participants are only a small part in the study, they are significant characters. And the stakeholders are the audience. However, the most crucial thing is to get the story straight and to use storytelling to research user stories. By the end, the parties should leave with a goal and an eagerness to address the product’s flaws.

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. In the end, user research is beneficial for everyone, and all you need to do is pique stakeholders ‘ interest in how the story ends.