UX Success

Lately, I’ve been thinking about “cybercrime” as I have been learning more about Information Security and the people involved.  Cyber Security is a pretty top of mind topic — seems like there is a news story every other day.   Even my pal who is a Wall Street investor (bad week for him) — and a self-proclaimed “Tech Luddite” — sent me a MarketWatch post last month about how for bank robbers, data has replaced guns.

Right here, in Portland — just up the street from us, an entire floor of the federal building is filled with FBI agents who spend every day surfing the Web, ferreting out crimes ranging from petty scams to child pornography.

This month the UX team has been working on user personas as part of our ongoing effort to understand the people involved in Infosec.  Ferris, here,  is an example of a user persona we are working on as we think about how people need to be able to make sense out of the data they get from their log files.  Ferris’ primary goal is to proactively  detect potential security threats so that he can protect his organization’s sensitive data.  He ferrets out suspicious, malicious or unusual behavior.  (I think this stock image represents him quite nicely)

Persona: Ferris the Ferret

• Corporate Goal: Must investigate alerts to prevent potential data loss and deliver the right information to the right people so they can protect their systems
• Pragmatic Goal: Needs to quickly ferret out relevant suspicious, malicious, or unusual behavior  in a sea of change and event data and deliver grokable reports
• Personal Goal: Cybersleuth Hero

Ferris has been doing integrity checking faithfully. He has a daily practice that incorporates analysis into daily operations so he can identify threat trends and patterns.  His ferreting out suspicious, malicious and unusual behavior has paid off.

He has discovered his system has been compromised. He is a trained professional so he DOES NOT PANIC.  He lovingly clutches his copy of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy to his bosom for fortification. Ferris needs to be able to think clearly about what  he is doing.

Ferris needs to figure out who the hacker is, how he got in,  and what vulnerabilities were exploited — (not necessarily in that order).
To further analyze the intrusion, he uses a tool to look longitudinally at the data so he can do a “post-mortem” system analysis.

When he finds the problem he prepares to inform system or network administrators who might be affected — both his own and those on other  networks.  Ferris might even report the incident to the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT).  If he does, he will need to provide report information related to the cybercrime activities he noticed, including the means by which he noticed, the host systems and networks involved in the attack, and any other data he has gathered from log files, network activity analysis, and use of forensic tools.

Funny story.  I was looking for some stock images to represent our personas.  Mark Little, one of our interaction designers, sent me this link from Boing Boing on “Hacker Stock Art”.  It is so hilarious, I laughed for twenty minutes.  Go here you won’t be sorry.

Note: This post was originally published on Tripwire’s blog – The State of Security at this link: http://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/it-security-data-protection/cyber-security/ux-research-ferreting-out-cybercrime/

I’ve been interested in “Personality Types” for awhile now, having first been introduced to the concept when I took the MBTI in grad school. This weekend I spent some time with the Kindle version of Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence by David Keirsey — my energy for applying this to UX was sparked.

Audrey is a dependable guardian. Mostly, she is responsible for getting things done and making sure nobody screws it up.

I wondered if I could start mapping personality types to our UX design personas. Here’s this morning’s stab at Audrey. She is a design persona we developed out of our research and experience with people who work with some of the Tripwire products.

As a part of her daily responsibility, Audrey is responsible for configuring, monitoring, and maintaining the technologies associated with Information Security.

She is interested in clarity and knowledge. Audrey prefers to observe and listen, and has a particular interest in facts and information which helps her to develop as clear a knowledge as possible. She likes to know where she stands — in other words — she needs clear goals to which she is working. She also needs to know that what she is expected to do is achievable. Audrey values her direct experience — that guides her decision making.

Even though Audrey has to interact with people, she prefers to focus on her own inner world? Like many people who are have careers in Technology — computer programmers, specifically, we think Audrey has a preference for Introversion(I). From a product standpoint, she appreciates tools that allow her to communicate efficiently and remotely — with simple explanation that does not require face to face contact or lengthy discussion.

She very much prefers to focus on the basic information she take in rather than interpreting and adding meaning to the information. She is pretty black and white about rules and regulations. When she gets data, she has a mental list that she checks off before she makes a decision. She is not likely to make exceptions to rules. This trait is common to people who are prefer Sensing (S). From a product standpoint, she needs data delivered in a way that allows her to quickly see only the information she needs to see so that she can act on it.

It follows that when Audrey makes decisions, she prefers to first look at logic and consistency before considering people and special circumstances. This is called Thinking (T) — interesting for HER since this is the only trait that is Male biased. (Females are 60% more likely to be iNtuitive).

Audrey is also very structured in the way she has dealings with the outside world. She prefers to get things decided — it makes her uncomfortable to stay open to new information and options. This is called Judging (J). From a product standpoint, Audrey is not likely to dig around looking for clues like her colleague Ferris.

Audrey has goals.

So we think Audrey is an ISTJ.

Applying what I read in David Keirsey’s book, she is probably quiet and serious (we picked a good image for her). She earns success by leveraging her natural thoroughness and dependability. Practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, and responsible, Audrey decides logically what should be done and works toward it steadily, regardless of distractions. She values traditions and loyalty. She takes pleasure in making everything orderly and organized – her work, her home, and her life. Let’s hope she meets a nice ESFP!

Take the Jung Typology Test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp