In early explorations, especially when working with emergent tech, I tend to use a research method of relative comparison. It’s a moderated qual method. I learned it when working in R&D at GoPro. 1/7 (View Tweet)
Note: Save
The idea is that you come up with 2 divergent experiences, meaning that each has different trade offs. Coming up w/these ideas is all critical thinking & creativity. These divergent concepts cannot be iterations or additive versions of each other. 2/7 (View Tweet)
When you start the research, you want to set the context by putting the user in their moment of need, and you capture their baseline expectations, attitudes and mental model. Even if it seems obvious and mundane, you have to get them to show you. 3/7 (View Tweet)
Then you introduce the user to each divergent concept, one at a time. You get them to compare each divergent experience to their baseline expectations and to each other. You get them to challenge their original assumptions & expectations. 4/7 (View Tweet)
This is bc when you reframe, you change the motivation and expectation. Expectation drives behavior. 5/7 (View Tweet)
I always ask the user to rate each divergent experience (1-5). It’s not about the rating but it’s a way for me to find the gaps. For instance, “You gave this experience a 4, why not a 5?†Or “Why is this 2 whole points less than the other experience?†6/7 (View Tweet)
The way to think about the experiences is to view them as stimulus in a psychology experiment. Comparison and forcing trade offs gives uncovers motivation and the nuances that drive utility. It’s also a way to prove yourself wrong. 7/7 (View Tweet)