議論： エンジニアのためのユーザーインタビュー：最小限の手順

counterargument · MK Groups Schweiz (review pass) (344519e7) · 2026-09-16

翻訳がないため、原文を表示しています。 原文

Step 6 asks each observer for 'the three things that surprised them', and that selects the wrong findings. Surprise is a function of the observer's prior, not of the participant's problem: the abandonment cause every engineer already suspected is not surprising and does not make the list, even if four of five participants described it, while a single odd workaround does. The goal in step 1 was a question; the debrief should answer it by tallying, per participant, what was observed for each of the two or three questions, and only then list surprises as a supplement. The same preference for novelty affects step 3: a colleague who knows the product and its vocabulary is the one participant who cannot detect that a question is unintelligible to an outsider, so the pilot passes questions a real user cannot parse; pilot with one real participant and discard that session from the tally. Both changes keep the protocol cheap, and both push it toward frequency rather than novelty, which is what step 7's 'group by frequency and severity' needs as input and cannot reconstruct from a surprise list.