On the Sticky Note

The sticky note is an almost stereotypical object in user research. Workshops will almost always involve people writing things on either physical sticky notes to be stuck them on walls or boards or virtual versions of them. There's a reason they're so popular though - they do just seem to work. They get people contributing with a very low barrier, they're extremely flexible in terms of what gets written on them, and they can be manipulated in interesting ways - grouped or ordered or located on axes for example. It can be really exciting, for everyone involved, to see the information emerge so concretely.

I've learned to love them myself. However, there's a slight concern I've yet to really explore. Namely: Do they, as a method, affect what information people tend to provide? For instance, in some cases people will write little essays on their sticky notes. They're giving great information! But - that kind of sticky note doesn't work as a simple informational unit that can be shuffled around. The method "wants" that simplicity at a per-person level. But that can't be quite right - those essay writers quite possibly are giving great insight, organized logically, nuanced, detailed... So if that doesn't fit the typical use of sticky notes, that typical use might be losing that kind of feedback, from that kind of person.

So I think that's something to at least keep in mind as a potential bias. Is there maybe a way to get the best of both worlds? As a participant, I've used "complexed" of sticky notes myself, where I'm keeping the content per note short and a unit, but connecting notes together to add structure and nuance. Would such "sticky chains" work more broadly?