Research has always been indispensable to the practice of design and it has come to the forefront with more people competing for the same users with similar products than any time in the past. There exist research methodologies ranging from usability lab studies and surveys to A/B testing, that aim to get a glimpse into the minds of the users and better understand how they interact with your product. In the presence of so many alternative research methodologies, the relevance of user interviews is at times questioned.
In my experience, there are some things that would forever remain unknown until the time questions are asked and answers sought after. The need for interviews arises due to the complex nature of human beings and the fact that we can’t always be defined by numbers or predicted by patterns.
Why contact people, schedule appointments and invest time in going and meeting them, in the presence of all the other options?
Everything you think you know is a lie
Most research methodologies focus their attention on validating concepts, ideas, and designs, so the questions they end up answering is whether something works or not. The answer to ‘why something works?’ is then based on a combination of prior knowledge, understanding of the human psyche and rationality. Interviews on the other hand have the flexibility to be structured in a way that makes no assumptions and gets these answers directly from the users.
In a recent research for our business app, we learned that people weren’t using the financial information we were showing them; we were already aware of this from the data and attributed it to the fact that financial information wasn’t something that people use every day. But during interviews it was revealed that since we weren’t the only medium for our users to sell through, the information we were pushing on them was just a part of their overall financial information and in that state did not make much sense. In hindsight, it looks obvious, but we were blinded by our assumptions and missed something that helped us rethink how we share information throughout our product.
The things you do know have gaps
One great advantage of interviews is that they at times enable you to discover things(good or bad) about your product that you weren’t even looking for. This can stem from tangential suggestions by the user themselves, you coming up with new lines of enquiry during the interview or at times even from the user misunderstanding a question. Finding out something when you aren’t looking is a part of interviews that fascinates me every single time.
The users become humans
Every time you go out and conduct interviews, your assumptions about who uses your products are tested. You are able to check if the personas you have created are actually representative of your audience or you are introduced to new classes of users, that you didn’t consider before. You are able to connect with these people and understand the challenges they face not just with your product but also in their life. This enables you to better integrate your product in their lives.
Why aren’t more people conducting interviews and why do most interviews end up being a waste of time?
Notions in place of goals
One of the biggest mistakes made while planning an interview is not defining the purpose of the interview. Without clarity on why interviews are being conducted, the whole exercise turns out to be futile as there is no set direction and it ends up becoming a generic mess of nothingness. You don’t want to end up becoming a reporter asking an Olympic gold winner how they feel about their victory.
At this point, you don’t want to go into the fine print, but define the problem that you are trying to solve. If you can’t put in a single sentence then you should probably keep working towards it, because everything you do from hereafter will have to be validated by whether it helps you reach the stated goal.
Undermining structured questionnaires
Once the goals are clearly defined and the expectations from the exercise set, the next thing to be done is to design a questionnaire. I personally prefer the interviews to be unstructured and use the questionnaire as a reckoner to stay in control of the direction of the interview.
The questionnaire should be detailed and divided into sections based on the main questions that need answering. It should include follow-up questions to enable the researcher to know what the user does as well as why they do it. The worst thing you can do is to think of freewheeling it; it doesn’t work. You end up losing track of what you needed and everything looks like a great insight, it is only later that you realize that nothing of value was gained from the interviews.
Lack of balance
When you are out there you have to get answers in a manner that eliminate confusion and semantics. While it is important to get to the bottom of why something works/doesn’t work, it isn’t a great idea to pester your user by asking a follow-up question on every answer. It is important to strike the right balance between getting to the core of something and getting thrown out by a user.
Too much dedication to the script
When conducting interviews, there inevitably comes a point where you are hit by the realization that you missed something of real importance. This makes versatility a very important quality for the researcher; you need to be willing to go over your questionnaire and provide for this new revelation.
To take it a step further, you can treat the first interview as a trial interview and revise the questionnaire based on it. This will not only help make the questionnaire complete but also help structure it based on the flow of the conversation.
Will having carefully structured the whole process guarantee a productive research? What else lies at the interview stage?
Convincing the user of value
Design has a very limited acceptance in the population, most people think of design as a visual medium of expression. There isn’t enough time in an interview to educate the user on the design think process. What needs to be done therefore is to convince the user that them answering questions results in a better product for them. The user only needs to understand that since they are the ones using the product, they are the best people to suggest how to improve it.
Establishing rapport
An interview would be useless if the user doesn’t open up and answer the questions candidly; a user on the back foot would give answers that they feel are the most unlikely to generate follow-up questions. To help the user feel at ease, start with a general line of inquiry about things that the user is comfortable talking, before making it about your product. This will ensure that when the ‘if and how’ questions approach, the user already has the momentum going for them.
Maintaining focus
It is easy to lose focus during an interview, both because of external distractions and the fact that the user picks up a tangent and runs with it. While this can at times be great to develop a better overall understanding of the users, spending too much time on non-core issues would be counterproductive, as it would dilute the research too much.
Having two people present at an interview helps, as one can lead the conversation back on track if the other is getting trailed off. In case of a single interviewer the burden of nudging the interviewee can at times be too much, so try to maintain sanity and keep from losing direction at any time.
Conclusion
While interviews are a great way to gain insights, without proper care and attention they end up being a gimmick and a waste of everybody’s time. Interviews are a design exercise in their own right and they should be treated as such. So instead of just conducting interviews next time, design them.
