Not quite. Although related, it is tangential. If one were to consider how personas fit into this perspective, we would need to consider documenting multiple personalities for each persona. Most personas are written with single purpose single expertise (Jane, a housewife, wants to buy regular groceries for her family, hardly used a computer before, ATMs scare her; Bob, a yuppie, needs some once off twee goodies for an upcoming dinner party, works in office all day, impresses the secretary with the magical powers of the internet; etc)

BTW, the core vs ring comparison isn't new, UIE had an article "Software Design: Is Your App a Core or a Ring?" in December 1996. That article was focussed more on the features/functionality/marketing of software programs, but this new one is a nice re-visit given the current UCD climate, focussing more on the users involved.

Posted by: Eric Scheid on January 16, 2003 03:03 AM

---

 

Perhaps it comes down to 'domain knowledge' and what a person feels comfortable in. Although the UI still needs to support the user well within that domain. The interest level can also assist the success or failure of the application. If I have more interest, I may be more willing to play or tweak an application to suit my needs. Also be more willing to put up with 'bad' design.

Posted by: daniel szuc on January 16, 2003 08:46 AM

---

 

I'm with Daniel on this. The interest level makes sense to me.
So now what? We're going to start designing differently for "interested users" and "non-interested" users? In most cases, that's probably people who buy our produc and people who don't, so we wouldnt have to worry about it.
But when it comes to financial software, it's probably the opposite: design for "non-interested" users and you should be covering the majority of the user population.
Seriously, in a perfect world, maybe we would have the freedom to design as many different versions of something as we wished. But I think going to this extent might push the wrong buttons of both marketing, development and higher management (i.e CFO and/or CEO). I know ours wouldnt be pleased at all. I'm already having a hard time trying to explain the importance of usability and why we need to identify the users and have customization built into the tools, but if I go for something like this? Don't even want to think about the end of that...
I think we should find a way to simplify usability itself. I have a feeling we're making this more complicated than it should be on ourselves.

Posted by: Berna on January 16, 2003 12:27 PM

---

 

More pseudoscience to fool the unwary. This gets very old...

multiple personality disorder

Posted by: Ron Zeno on January 16, 2003 01:11 PM

---

 

(I thought I posted this in the morning, but apparently MT didn't register it.)

This article is mostly useless. Let me see...

It never occurred to us that users would exhibit multiple personalities when using applications.

but later in the article, they've known about it for years:

This distinction of Core versus Ring has helped us understand user requirements a lot better than any previous model we had. Over the years since we first developed the model.

and

What made the difference were Chip's core competencies. Before Chip acquired the systems, he'd had tremendous experience diagnosing vehicles. He'd been working on cars since he was 11 years old. He knew the workings of automobiles inside and out.

Therefore, when he purchased the diagnostic system, he was looking for an extension of his existing skill set and knowledge. The system was basically an extra set of hands, allowing him to diagnose cars faster and more effectively, but not doing anything radically different than what he was doing before he'd gotten the system.

Well... DUH!

People are naturally likely to be experts at what they've been doing for ages. They know the tools, they know the terminology, they know the processes.

I could've told you that. UIE is just figuring it out?

The diagnostic system is what we call a 'Core Application' in Chip's case. Core applications extend the existing core skills of the user.

The financial system is what we call a 'Ring Application.' Ring applications deliver functionality that is beyond the user's core competencies. (We call it a ring because it is outside of the core.)

Ah, creating terms in a style popularised by Alan Cooper himself. Yay!

There's more, but I see no point in going into that detail.

Posted by: MadMan on January 16, 2003 02:20 PM

---

 

Berna - "I have a feeling we're making this more complicated than it should be on ourselves."

Agree!! Keep the service sell simple. Most companies will not buy into most of the usability tools unfortunately, so you really have to sell in something that will give tangible results and show improvements to the product ASAP. Then if the customer is impressed with the results you can start throwing in 'value-added' usability services like (and as much as I hate to say it) - "user needs analysis" Again, where are the VP of User Experience folks when you need them to backup your pitch ;)

Posted by: daniel szuc on January 17, 2003 02:19 AM

---