Cultural probes and magic things
Published September 15th, 2006 in Books, Design research, User experienceI was recently reading UX Magazine (from the The Usability Professionals’ Association) and they had an article on cultural probes and another on moving with a magic thing, both new methods of user research.
Essentially cultural probes are a technique where you hand over control of the user research to the users themselves. Rather than observing them you provide them with a ‘kit’ with which they record their own behaviour and experiences. Typically this kit would include a diary, a digital camera etc. It’s like ’scrapbooking’, where you write and stick stuff into a book to record what’s going on.
“Cultural probes are designed to prompt and elicit information from people about their lives and local culture.”
The original developers, William Gaver from the London Royal College of Art, suggest this technique is useful in non-work contexts or when more traditional techniques (such as lab testing or contextual enquiry) would either influence behaviour or be logistically difficult to perform.
The second technique, “moving with a magic thing” works according to a similar concept. It’s claimed to be useful when finding uses for new technology, by giving users the new thing (or a mock-up of it) and getting them to go away and discover uses for it. This beats a bunch of designers and engineers sitting around a table trying to think of how to use new technology, which is what most often happens. Why not employ the potential end-users to work out what it might be useful for?
“Users are met in their environment and given a ‘black box’ or a mock-up of a device. They are then told what functionality the device has and are asked to go about their life as they normally would…They are given a digital camera for a week and asked to take pictures of the situations where they would use the ‘magic thing’.”
Obviously this technique is most useful for technology-driven products/projects and only at the initial stages; different kinds of research would follow once the initial set of use scenarios have been collected.
I think these techniques are quite fascinating and could be valuable additions to the ol’ UX toolbox. I might have a use for the probe method soon, but the magic thing method might need to wait a little longer. It would be great to hear some feedback from people who have used these techniques and how successful they were.
Whilst the UPA don’t make the magazine articles available online—or at least not immediately—there’s plenty of stuff on the web. Gerry Gaffney has written quite a useful guide on using cultural probes, and Anu Kankainen has made her article on the moving with a magic thing technique available online.
Popularity: 14% [?]
Search
Latest posts
Old favourites
Categories
- Accessibility (13)
- Automotive (10)
- Books (2)
- Conferences (33)
- Consulting (21)
- Design (6)
- Design research (24)
- Family (18)
- Humour (27)
- IA (40)
- Interactive marketing (3)
- Intranets (14)
- Music (14)
- Photos (7)
- Quotes (11)
- Ramblings (121)
- Speaking (17)
- Travel (23)
- Usability (24)
- User experience (35)
- Web 2.0 (6)
- Web design (44)
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
Where I do what you’re doing now
Code and technology
Creative and multimedia
Design research
KM, IM and strategy
Misc
UX, IA and IxD
- 37 signals signal vs noise
- Adaptive Path entries
- Andy Rutledge : Design View
- Austin Govella : Thinking and Making
- Boxes and Arrows
- Chris Khalil’s Musing
- Christina Wodtke : Eleganthack
- Christopher Fahey : Graphpaper
- Donna Maurer : DonnaM
- findability.org
- Good Experience
- Iain Barker : Simpler is Better
- InfoDesign
- Jared Spool : Brainsparks
- Jeff Veen
- Jesse James Garrett
- Joshua Ledwell : Compete on Usability
- Leisa Reichelt : Disambiguity
- Lou Rosenfeld : blougList
- Lyle Kantrovich
- Martin Hardee : Sun.com Design
- OK/Cancel
- Peter Merholz
- Peter Van Dijck’s Guide to Ease
- Shane Morris : UXB
- Steve Baty : Doc Holds Forth
- Todd Warfel
- UsableWorld
- UX Matters
- Zef Fugaz : zef[a]media


[...] I’ve blogged about the technique before, but in summary it’s a form of longitudinal user research for situations where you can’t normally go. For example, you might get your participants to keep a diary for a few weeks whilst they are renovating their house. Analysing what they give you back will give you very rich information about who they are, what they go through and what they think. (You’ll find a very good intro on Gerry’s Information & Design website) [...]
[...] I’ve blogged about the technique before, but in summary it’s a form of longitudinal user research for situations where you can’t normally go. For example, you might get your participants to keep a diary for a few weeks whilst they are renovating their house. Analysing what they give you back will give you very rich information about who they are, what they go through and what they think. (You’ll find a very good intro on Gerry’s Information & Design website) [...]