Questions for the Professionals

Although we leveraged the use of professionals, the questions we asked professionals could have been different. We believe we asked good questions, backed by some of our interviewees saying so, however the questions weren't necessarily the ones we wanted to ask. The questions we generated revolved around our perceived idea of what the interviewee could answer and would be comfortable answering, based on their history and work experience. We were asking questions about what we thought the interviewee knew, which wasn't necessarily what we wanted to know. While we wrote some questions in the beginning along the lines of what we wanted to know, those didn't seem to land so we just avoided them for the remainder of the semester. The burning questions we were unable to ask were about specific technical implementation, such as TODO.

As the semester progressed so did our engine and our understanding of engine development, so our questions became more advanced, in-depth, and assuming of our audience and interviewees of prior knowledge. While having more technical questions isn't a negative, the assumption of knowledge is, specifically for our target audience of novices. Another result of personally understanding game engines better was we had fewer questions to ask, making generating questions harder. So we began asking the interviewees for information about what they were currently working on and interested in. However, it was still difficult. This is something we came to accept, interviewing is hard. We aren't studying to be interviewers either.

Something we wish we had done, although not sure how we would have, would be to ask for feedback specifically about what we developing. The reason we feel we didn't deviated from asking the questions we did was because of how positively our interviewees responded to our questions. Our questions were generated from meticulously researching that person, almost stalking. The problem with trying to go to this other question format was also how to ask about feedback if they don't know much about our project, which was to be expected. We couldn't expect our developers to take time to look at what we were doing, as they were already donating at least an hour to interview with us. It may be that we need to have another outlet for this feedback but that wasn't possible with our scope.

Part of the original plan was also to have the content of the interviews match our development schedule but that didn't happen. We were never guaranteed to talk about what we had recently developed in an interview, because it wasn't guaranteed the interviewee had experience in that subject or enjoyed talking about the topic. This is for some of the same reason as above.

Comments