Card-Sorting is a user-oriented, empirical usability method for generating quantitative (and qualitative) statements. It determines the optimal grouping of content from the user’s point of view and thus supports the user-centered development of information architectures.<\/div><\/div>\n
When do you perform card sorting?<\/h2>\nIt depends! – early vs. late product development phases<\/strong><\/h3>\nCard sorting is mainly used in the analysis or conception phase to accompany the process. But also later, e.g. if problems with the existing information architecture are suspected, card sorting can be helpful. If one is still in the early stages of product development, one usually resorts to open card sorting because it takes a generative approach – it generates new grouping ideas.<\/p>\n
Card sorting in early development stages allows changes to be made to the wireframe or prototype at low cost. In later product development phases or when a product is already released, closed card sorting and reverse card sorting (also: tree testing) are often used with an evaluative approach.
<\/p>\n
Open card sorting (generative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn open card sorting, subjects sort pages, content, terms, information, or features into groups they find related. It thus offers a very good insight into the mental model of the target group. Open card sorting is ideally done while still in the design phase, but a content audit should have already taken place at this point.
![\"To](\"https:\/\/userlutions.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/card-sorting-offen-e1604487161508.png\")
The clusters formed are examined for commonalities in order to make a recommendation for an information architecture based on this. Since the number of groups perceived as belonging together by the test persons can vary greatly, a large sample is needed for valid results.
<\/p>\n
Closed card sorting (evaluative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn closed card sorting, test subjects sort pages, content, terms, information, or functions into predetermined groups. Closed card sorting is often used when usability testing, analytics, or analysis of search queries have shown that there are problems with navigation, but the top level of navigation cannot be changed.
![\"To](\"https:\/\/userlutions.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/card-sorting-geschlossen-e1604487134388.png\")
<\/p>\n
Reverse card sorting \/ treetesting (evaluative, iterative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nReverse card sorting also already has an information architecture. However, the test subjects do not sort terms here, but are given the task of searching for specific information. The search takes place in the purely hierarchical information structure (usually still without the UI design). This offers the advantage that the cognitive process is more in line with the actual approach.<\/p>\n
The success rate (information found), the direct path (without regressions) and the time are evaluated. The method provides insights into the navigation behavior of users. Reverse card sorting is often used to compare two different information architectures or to benchmark success after information architecture changes.
![\"Towards](\"https:\/\/userlutions.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/card-sorting-reverse-e1604487088908.png\")
<\/p>\n
How do you perform card sorting?<\/h2>\nOnline vs. offline – and that’s not the only question!<\/strong><\/h3>\nCard sorting can be performed both offline and online. Since quantitative data wants to be collected for validation, the trend has been to perform card sorting online. Online card sorting is generally more cost-effective and quicker to carry out for large samples, as, among other things, the data is immediately available digitally for analysis and the costs for incentivisation are lower.<\/p>\n
A big disadvantage, which should not be underestimated, is from my point of view the abandonment of the usability method “thinking out loud”. Most online card sorting tools do not provide an opportunity for test takers to comment on their thoughts and questions about each card. Also, the behavior cannot be observed, which often provides additional insight. In the worst case, a purely quantitative card sorting does not provide any new insights at all.
<\/p>\n
Qualitative vs. quantitative – The combination makes the difference!<\/strong><\/h3>\nI recommend combining a quantitative and qualitative approach. That is, using a large sample to conduct unmoderated online card sorting for valid quantitative results and using a much smaller sample to combine card sorting with the thinking-aloud method to generate qualitative insights. The latter could take place classically in a moderated (synchronous) card-sorting session on site.<\/p>\n
Card sorting is mainly used in the analysis or conception phase to accompany the process. But also later, e.g. if problems with the existing information architecture are suspected, card sorting can be helpful. If one is still in the early stages of product development, one usually resorts to open card sorting because it takes a generative approach – it generates new grouping ideas.<\/p>\n
Card sorting in early development stages allows changes to be made to the wireframe or prototype at low cost. In later product development phases or when a product is already released, closed card sorting and reverse card sorting (also: tree testing) are often used with an evaluative approach.
<\/p>\n
Open card sorting (generative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn open card sorting, subjects sort pages, content, terms, information, or features into groups they find related. It thus offers a very good insight into the mental model of the target group. Open card sorting is ideally done while still in the design phase, but a content audit should have already taken place at this point.
The clusters formed are examined for commonalities in order to make a recommendation for an information architecture based on this. Since the number of groups perceived as belonging together by the test persons can vary greatly, a large sample is needed for valid results.
<\/p>\n
Closed card sorting (evaluative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nIn closed card sorting, test subjects sort pages, content, terms, information, or functions into predetermined groups. Closed card sorting is often used when usability testing, analytics, or analysis of search queries have shown that there are problems with navigation, but the top level of navigation cannot be changed.
<\/p>\n
Reverse card sorting \/ treetesting (evaluative, iterative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nReverse card sorting also already has an information architecture. However, the test subjects do not sort terms here, but are given the task of searching for specific information. The search takes place in the purely hierarchical information structure (usually still without the UI design). This offers the advantage that the cognitive process is more in line with the actual approach.<\/p>\n
The success rate (information found), the direct path (without regressions) and the time are evaluated. The method provides insights into the navigation behavior of users. Reverse card sorting is often used to compare two different information architectures or to benchmark success after information architecture changes.
<\/p>\n
How do you perform card sorting?<\/h2>\nOnline vs. offline – and that’s not the only question!<\/strong><\/h3>\nCard sorting can be performed both offline and online. Since quantitative data wants to be collected for validation, the trend has been to perform card sorting online. Online card sorting is generally more cost-effective and quicker to carry out for large samples, as, among other things, the data is immediately available digitally for analysis and the costs for incentivisation are lower.<\/p>\n
A big disadvantage, which should not be underestimated, is from my point of view the abandonment of the usability method “thinking out loud”. Most online card sorting tools do not provide an opportunity for test takers to comment on their thoughts and questions about each card. Also, the behavior cannot be observed, which often provides additional insight. In the worst case, a purely quantitative card sorting does not provide any new insights at all.
<\/p>\n
Qualitative vs. quantitative – The combination makes the difference!<\/strong><\/h3>\nI recommend combining a quantitative and qualitative approach. That is, using a large sample to conduct unmoderated online card sorting for valid quantitative results and using a much smaller sample to combine card sorting with the thinking-aloud method to generate qualitative insights. The latter could take place classically in a moderated (synchronous) card-sorting session on site.<\/p>\n
The clusters formed are examined for commonalities in order to make a recommendation for an information architecture based on this. Since the number of groups perceived as belonging together by the test persons can vary greatly, a large sample is needed for valid results.
<\/p>\n
In closed card sorting, test subjects sort pages, content, terms, information, or functions into predetermined groups. Closed card sorting is often used when usability testing, analytics, or analysis of search queries have shown that there are problems with navigation, but the top level of navigation cannot be changed.
<\/p>\n
Reverse card sorting \/ treetesting (evaluative, iterative approach)<\/strong><\/h3>\nReverse card sorting also already has an information architecture. However, the test subjects do not sort terms here, but are given the task of searching for specific information. The search takes place in the purely hierarchical information structure (usually still without the UI design). This offers the advantage that the cognitive process is more in line with the actual approach.<\/p>\n
The success rate (information found), the direct path (without regressions) and the time are evaluated. The method provides insights into the navigation behavior of users. Reverse card sorting is often used to compare two different information architectures or to benchmark success after information architecture changes.
<\/p>\n
How do you perform card sorting?<\/h2>\nOnline vs. offline – and that’s not the only question!<\/strong><\/h3>\nCard sorting can be performed both offline and online. Since quantitative data wants to be collected for validation, the trend has been to perform card sorting online. Online card sorting is generally more cost-effective and quicker to carry out for large samples, as, among other things, the data is immediately available digitally for analysis and the costs for incentivisation are lower.<\/p>\n
A big disadvantage, which should not be underestimated, is from my point of view the abandonment of the usability method “thinking out loud”. Most online card sorting tools do not provide an opportunity for test takers to comment on their thoughts and questions about each card. Also, the behavior cannot be observed, which often provides additional insight. In the worst case, a purely quantitative card sorting does not provide any new insights at all.
<\/p>\n
Qualitative vs. quantitative – The combination makes the difference!<\/strong><\/h3>\nI recommend combining a quantitative and qualitative approach. That is, using a large sample to conduct unmoderated online card sorting for valid quantitative results and using a much smaller sample to combine card sorting with the thinking-aloud method to generate qualitative insights. The latter could take place classically in a moderated (synchronous) card-sorting session on site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Online vs. offline – and that’s not the only question!<\/strong><\/h3>\nCard sorting can be performed both offline and online. Since quantitative data wants to be collected for validation, the trend has been to perform card sorting online. Online card sorting is generally more cost-effective and quicker to carry out for large samples, as, among other things, the data is immediately available digitally for analysis and the costs for incentivisation are lower.<\/p>\n
A big disadvantage, which should not be underestimated, is from my point of view the abandonment of the usability method “thinking out loud”. Most online card sorting tools do not provide an opportunity for test takers to comment on their thoughts and questions about each card. Also, the behavior cannot be observed, which often provides additional insight. In the worst case, a purely quantitative card sorting does not provide any new insights at all.
<\/p>\n
Qualitative vs. quantitative – The combination makes the difference!<\/strong><\/h3>\nI recommend combining a quantitative and qualitative approach. That is, using a large sample to conduct unmoderated online card sorting for valid quantitative results and using a much smaller sample to combine card sorting with the thinking-aloud method to generate qualitative insights. The latter could take place classically in a moderated (synchronous) card-sorting session on site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I recommend combining a quantitative and qualitative approach. That is, using a large sample to conduct unmoderated online card sorting for valid quantitative results and using a much smaller sample to combine card sorting with the thinking-aloud method to generate qualitative insights. The latter could take place classically in a moderated (synchronous) card-sorting session on site.<\/p>\n