Summary: Too many UX-themed books and practitioners continue to refer to personas as “fictional”. This language can mislead stakeholders into thinking that personas are crafted from thin air or human “hallucinations”. The truth is that effective personas and conversations must be rooted in real data. Learn why we need to stop calling personas “fictional”.
The Misconception of “Fictional Personas” in UX
First, personas are one of the most misunderstood and distorted tools in UX work. Blame Alan Cooper for poorly describing them. He was an engineer and started to transition to UX around the time he ‘invented’ the term (his words). The history of personas goes back to Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm (early 90’s) and to marketing cross-over gurus like Angus Jenkinson. Note that Jeff Sauro puts Jenkinson as the originator of personas. The concept of touchpoints can also be traced to Jenkinson- though he says it was a client of his who coined the term.
Somewhere in the 90’s personas seemed to criss-cross with marketing segments. Many UX people today talk about personas as if they are segments, or worse actual people.
So, what are personas? They are composites of user behavior. They represent user needs and context of use. They also capture roles: functions people perform.
What are they not? Personas are not job titles– a mistake a professor and UX consultant made recently when trying to de-bunk and explain proper persona use. We’re so confused.
Mixed messages swirl around personas (and it’s not getting any better)
Persona confusion continues to be amplified. The last five books I read on UX related topics (Content design, Inclusive design etc) reference our old friend “fictional personas”. It seems to slip off the tongue so easily. Even UX training organizations I’ve shared my training with, like the Interaction Design Foundation (IxDF), confuse personas. On the one hand, they have a fairly clear Encylopedia entry from Lene Nielsen, a Danish academic specializing in personas who shares a similar point to this post you are reading:
“Despite the fact that a vast number of articles about using personas have been written, there is no unilateral understanding of the application of the method nor a definition of what a persona description is. ”
Lene Nielsen’s article discusses that a “fictional persona” or “assumption person” is or can be used as a starting point. Many organizations new to UX use assumption personas as a stopping point.
Yes, but: We need to get beyond starting points to do good UX. The reality in teams, vendors and orgs with low UX maturity is they don’t go beyond this stage. Worse, they view this “Type of Persona” as an option to adopt instead of as a starting point for doing user research followed by proper evidence-based or role-based personas.
“Fictional or assumption” personas are like saying a proof of concept (a dev term) is the final version. You would never draft software for the sake of drafting. You’d evolve it into working code. It’s the same for personas. Nor would you call your code ‘fictional’ and expect buy-in.
At the same time, Interaction Design Foundation Editor William Hudson, in an article called “What are personas? 2024 update”, refers to personas as “fabrications based on research.” In his video, he describes an Agile approach called “minimal personas” that captures all the worst practices for personas: a name, a set of high-level demographics. Later, he introduces “extended personas” where you capture “lifestyle, interests, hobbies.” Both these data points are useless to the goal of using personas as design guides for user advocacy.
Worst practices? Yeah, we’re looking for behavior in personas, not lifestyle attributes or demographics. In 2006, I distinguished Marketing vs. Design personas in my sidebar contributions to the Personas Lifecycle book (Pruitt and Adlin). Since then, I’ve insisted that design personas are all you need to care about. We’re designers, not marketers—that’s a different discipline. Ditto for Focus Groups—that’s a market research technique—just stop.
Design personas are the only game for UX people
First, we create personas to stay close to the user. We create them to design. Marketing personas have no place in the UX or Interaction Design process. Second, the whole point of personas is to understand behavior (tasks, flows, interactions), roles (including role switching), motivations (including emotional and social triggers and mindsets), and context (place, time, conditions, and constraints).
Third, design personas are not marketing profiles but cognitive tools (for designers and decision-makers). In architecting interactions, we require actual data that can guide decisions related to information and task display, layout, concept, and more.
Finally, personas are more than just creative writing exercises. They need to be informed by user research—observations, interviews, and context of use. Without this foundation, personas risk becoming mere stereotypes that don’t accurately reflect user needs or behaviors. Worse, stakeholders like engineers or Business teams can lose interest, credibility, or the value of being insight-driven, evidence-based, and Outside-In.
Reframing of personas doesn’t help
In an attempt to shed the baggage of persona confusion, authors and UX Veterans like Larry Marine (who influenced Cooper’s original thinking and from whom I learned role-based personas) call them “Knowledge profiles” in Disruptive Research. Indi Young in Mental Models calls them “Thinking Styles.”
This adds more new language to what’s become a ‘standard’ for describing user knowledge and behavioral profiles. I personally find it less helpful, but I get it. Amid decades-long distortion and confusion, the new language differentiates and distinguishes. Yea, I get it; I’m just sayin’.
Bottom line:
Stop calling Personas “fictional”…Instead, let’s consider them composites of real behavior—or at least make that point in books, courses, and around the office among stakeholders. These personas are grounded in a deep understanding of your user’s behavior, offering a reliable guide for design decisions. They embody real user-lived experiences that can help de-risk bad design approaches.
Learn more: Join our Personas Training on November 7th and 8th, 2024
