UX Research Flashcards
(93 cards)
What presentation on UX research should consist of
- Why we needed this research
- Key findings
- Influence on design
What is saturated answer to research question
It means that new interviews will not give us any new information
What is a good qualitative research
When as a result we clearly understand what to do
Why do we need research?
To understand where we now and which plan do we need to build the better reality
Qualitative or quantitative to choose
Both. Quantitative on their own explain nothing and qualitative prove nothing
Specifics of qualitative and quantitative research
- Quantitative — all about numbers, answer to ‘What’
- Qualitative — pains, needs, reasons, insights/ answer to ‘Why’
Quantitative or Qualitative?
Quant — more respectful, numbers are easy to understand
Qual — more people-oriented, why better understand the reasons behind
Phrase about Quant and Qual
Quant research alone explains nothing, Qual research alone proves nothing
Which type of research is better for a designer?
Qualitative, because it’s more people-oriented and gives insights
Types of qual research
- Usability testing (can be also quant)
- In-depth interviews
- Observations
- Context interviews (while the user is using some interface)
- Focus-groups (not so good for designers)
- Diary testing (when we want analyse experience for the period, long-term usability)
- Workshops (participative design)
Who is SME
A subject-matter expert (SME) is a person who has accumulated great knowledge
Sources for qual study
- Users (real and potential)
- Not-users (used and quitted or didn’t come)
- SME (subject matter experts)
- Owner (product owner)
Triangulation
For:
- Credibility
- Complexity
- Depth
- Width
Triangulation examples
- Start with quant study (or google analytics), discover problems, build hypotheses
- Continue with qual, go deeper
- Then back to quant, to check/prove
- In-depth interview (calm and long), context interview (quicker and more hot), open survey (anonymous)
- Triangulate people (researchers) to avoid confirmation bias
The difference between research and study
Research is a discipline, study is a specific research for the specific project
Divergent and convergent thinking
Phases of this process are either diverging or converging. During a diverging phase, you try to open up as much as possible without limiting yourself, whereas a converging phase focuses on condensing and narrowing your findings or ideas.
A landscape of user research methods
The Attitudinal vs. Behavioral Dimension
Kind of contrasting “what people say” versus “what people do” (very often the two are quite different).
About card sorting
Card sorting is a UX research method in which study participants group individual labels written on notecards according to criteria that make sense to them.
Provides insights about users’ mental model of an information space and can help determine the best information architecture for your product.
Let’s imagine that you’re designing a car-rental site. Your company offers around 60 vehicle models that customers can choose from. How would you organize those vehicles into categories that people can browse to quickly find their ideal car rental? Your company might use technical terms such as family car, executive car, and full-size luxury car. But your users might have no idea of the difference between some of those categories. This is where card sorting can help: ask your users to organize vehicles into groups that make sense to them, and, then, see what patterns emerge.
Conducting the card sorting
Generally, the process works as follows:
- Choose a set of topics. The set should include 40–80 items that represent the main content on the site. Write each topic on an individual index card.
Tip: Avoid topics that contain the same words; participants will tend to group those cards together.
- User organizes topics into groups. Shuffle the cards and give them to the participant. Ask the user to look at the cards one at a time and place cards that belong together into piles.
Some piles can be big, others small. If the participant isn’t sure about a card, or doesn’t know what it means, it’s ok to leave it off to the side. It’s better to have a set of “unknown” or “unsure” cards than to randomly group cards.
Notes:
There is no preset number of piles to aim for. Some users may create many small piles, others may end up with a few big ones. It all depends on their individual mental models.
Users should be aware that it’s OK change their mind as they work: they can move a card from one pile to another, merge two piles, split a pile into several new piles, and so on. Card sorting is a bottom–up process, and false starts are to be expected.
- User names the groups. Once the participant has grouped all the cards to her satisfaction, give her blank cards and ask her to write down a name for each group she created. This step will reveal the user’s mental model of the topic space. You may get a few ideas for navigation categories, but don’t expect participants to create effective labels.
Tip: It’s important to do this naming step after all the groups have been created, so that the user doesn’t lock herself in to categories while she’s still working; she should be free to rearrange her groups at any moment.
- Debrief the user. (This step is optional, but highly recommended.) Ask users to explain the rationale behind the groups they created. Additional questions may include:
- Were any items especially easy or difficult to place?
- Did any items seem to belong in two or more groups?
- What thoughts do you have about the items left unsorted (if any)?
You can also ask the user to think out loud while they perform the original sorting. Doing so provides detailed information, but also takes time to analyze. For example, you might hear the user say, “I might put card Tomatoes into pile Vegetables. But wait, they are really a fruit, they don’t really fit there. I think Fruits is a better match.” Such a statement would allow you to conclude that the user did consider Vegetables a decent match for Tomatoes, even though Fruits was even better. This information could push you into crosslinking from Vegetables to Fruits or maybe even assigning the item to Vegetables if there are other reasons leaning in that direction.
If needed, ask the user for more-practical group sizes. You should not impose your own wishes or biases upon the participant during the original sorting (steps 1–3), but once the user’s preferred grouping has been defined, and after the initial debrief, you can definitely ask the participant to break up large groups into smaller subgroups. Or the opposite: to group small groups into larger categories.
Repeat with 15–20 users. You’ll need enough users to detect patterns in users’ mental models.
Open Card Sorting vs. Closed Card Sorting
- Open card sorting is the most common type of card sort and what we described above. Generally, when practitioners use the term card sort, it’s implied that it will be an open card sort. In an open card sort, users are free to assign whatever names they want to the groups they’ve created with the cards in the stack.
- Closed card sorting is a variation where users are given a predetermined set of category names, and they are asked to organize the individual cards into these predetermined categories. Closed card sorting does not reveal how users conceptualize a set of topics. Instead, it is used to evaluate how well an existing category structure supports the content, from a user’s perspective. A critique of the closed card sort is that it tests users’ ability to fit the content into the “correct” bucket — to users, it can feel more like solving a puzzle than like naturally matching content to categories. The method does not reflect how users naturally browse content, which is to first scan categories and make a selection based on information scent. Instead of closed card sorting, we recommend tree testing (also known as reverse card sorting) as a way to evaluate navigation categories.
Moderated vs. Unmoderated Card Sorting
- Moderated card sorting includes step 4 in the process outlined above: the debrief (and/or think-aloud during the actual sorting). This step is a highly valuable opportunity to gain qualitative insights into users’ rationale for their groupings. You can ask questions, probe for further understanding, and ask about specific cards, as needed. If it’s feasible for your schedule and budget, we recommend moderating your card sorts to get these insights.
- Unmoderated card sorting involves users organizing content into groups on their own, usually via an online tool, with no interaction with a facilitator. It is generally faster and less expensive than moderated card sorting, for the simple reason that it doesn’t require a researcher to speak with each user. Unmoderated card sorting can be useful as a supplement to moderated card sorting sessions. For example, imagine a study involved highly distinct audience groups, and the research team decided to run a card sort with 60 users: 20 users for each of 3 different audience groups. In this case, it can be cost-prohibitive to run 60 moderated card-sorting sessions. Instead, the team may decide to do a small study of 5–10 moderated sessions for each audience group, followed by unmoderated card sorting for the remaining sessions.
Paper vs. Digital Card Sorting
- Paper card sorting is the traditional form of card sorting. Topics are written on index cards and users are asked to create their group on a large workspace. The biggest advantage to paper card sorting is that there is no learning curve for the study participants: all they have to do is stack paper into piles on a table. It’s a forgiving and flexible process: users can easily move cards around or even start over. It’s also easier for people to manipulate a very large number of cards on a big table than it is to manipulate many objects on a computer screen that often can’t show everything within a single view. The downside of paper card sorting is that the researchers have to manually document each participant’s groups and input them into a tool for analysis.
- Digital card sorting uses software or a web-based tool to simulate topic cards, which users then drag and drop into groups. This method is generally the easiest for researchers, because the software can analyze the results from all the participants and reveal which items were most commonly grouped together, what category names users created, and the likelihood of two items being paired together. The downside is that the usability of the tool can impact the success of the session — technology problems can cause frustration or even prevent users from creating the exact groups that they want.
Card sorting VS tree testing
Card sorting is invaluable for understanding how your audience thinks, but it does not necessarily produce the exact categorization scheme you should follow.
For example, participants in a card sort often create a generic category to hold a few items which don’t seem to fit anywhere else; this is understandable, but if you were to actually include an “other stuff” category in your menu, the same users would avoid it like the plague.
(Website visitors are notoriously reluctant to click on vague labels because they quite rightly suspect they’ll have to do a lot of work to sift through the content.)
For best results, a card sort should be followed up by a tree test to evaluate the proposed menu structure.