A little clarity on user profiles doc

One more question about this Morgan . Which of these user profiles would best represent Chris from the first interview session? Specifically when he was talking about using ISLG as an arbitrator?  

Hi Stefanie,

"Surveys of content" is referring to broader analytic surveys of content. For example, the number of cases that decided to award damages to the investor based on a breach of fair and equitable treatment. In other words, they are interested more in data analytics than the actually wording found in the text of the documents. ISLG currently provides powerful tools for the users to find relevant wording found in the text of documents, but we're limited in our capacity to provide broader data analytics.

Chris is a senior lawyer, but he also performs his own research, which is atypical for a person of his level of seniority.

Thanks,

Morgan

thanks!

Hi Morgan - I'm just working through crafting our personas based on our user interviews/observations. Because we want these UX personas to be based on unique user behaviour, I think we can combine the Sr. Lawyer and gov't dispute lawyer, the Jr. Lawyer and the student because we'll see significant overlap in their general behaviour right now. We then have the Legal Researcher, Government Advisory Lawyer (for their heavy need for doc comparison), NGO Lawyer (for their need to survey content) and Academics as their own personas as I don't right now see much overlap in their actual user behaviour. Does this sound accurate to you? 

I believe we have a session booked tomorrow that will give us insight into how an academic will use the platform. We haven't, however, had a chance to talk to someone from an NGO or a Gov't advisor, but I'm certain you've had extensive experience with these types of users. From your doc, I have a good understanding of their goals, but I'm wondering what some of their pain-points might be (beyond not offering the right functionality for them yet). Do you have any insight into this from any of your previous conversations? If you have any other insight to share about these groups, how they'd use the application and what would motivate them in choosing a research tool, please let me know!    

Thanks in advance.

Hi Stefanie,

I think that is fair way to look at the personas.

For the NGO and Government users, I'm less concerned about the NGO users, because they makeup a very small percentage of our user base. For the Government users, it's unfortunate that we've been unable to line up a user observation session; however, if I were to guess what their pain points are, it would be the inability to identify data on their risk exposure (i.e., what treaties are currently in force where their government is a party, and what type of rights and obligations are contained in those agreements). Providing this information would be a game changer for these users (and others).  Currently, these users can easily get an understanding of the legal substantive standards (i.e., the standards for determining when there has been an unlawful expropriation), but it is much more laborious for them to tie those standards back to specific language in the treaties.

Hope that helps, but let me know if you're looking for something else.

Thanks,

Morgan  

Morgan Thank-you, your reply is very helpful. 

I'm listening back to our discussion today with Loukas and wanted to run something past you. He said he wanted to see was how often the counter claims were being involved. Specifically, how often counter claims became the main claim. When we're talking about introducing more 'analytics/surveying content to the workflow', is the kind of parameter you could see an analysis being done on, or is this far too specific to Loukas' needs. 

I'm also thinking that if we don't know too much about the NGO user, we should leave them off of the design personas for now if we have another user type who is often surveying content. I have a persona whose task is to vet/find arbitrators. Could this persona absorb the surveying content behaviour? If we did this, we would have covered off the one unique behaviour the NGO user has. 

Thanks again.

Hi Stefanie ,

Yes, Loukas' example is probably a little too nuanced for what we plan on creating with the analytics tools, but the concept is the same. 

Sure, we can disregards the NGO persona. I think it's the other way around, someone who is surveying content behaviour might be doing so for the purpose of the vetting arbitrators.

It sounds like you're regrouping personas based on the type of research tasks they perform, which makes sense. I suppose I misunderstood this when I created the personas, but the change seems appropriate to me.

Morgan

Ok perfect thanks! You weren't wrong because there any many different types of personas - I just think that if we group based on behaviour, we'll be able to keep ourselves laser focused. Personas should always grow, change and adapt though so we can always add more or enhance where needed. 

Sounds good to me!

Morgan