headers
Boniface Lau | 1 Jun 2003 01:03
Picon

RE: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements


> From: sigia-l-admin <at> asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin <at> asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric Scheid
>  
> On 31/5/03 10:33 AM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau <at> compuserve.com>
> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > 
> > As I had commented at the beginning of this thread, IAs are using
> > an ordering tool (card sort) for grouping purpose.
> 
> I've done "card sorts" with users many times, and never have we used
> some mechanical device for processing the cards into some
> arrangement determined by intrinsic qualities represented on those
> cards.
> 
> Am I missing something here? 

Yes, couple things.

First, the concept of sorting. Sorting is about order. But IAs use
card sort for its grouping effect. Thus, I said IAs use an ordering
tool for grouping purpose.

Second, the method of sorting. A method can be carried out by a
mechanical device or a person. Whether you have actually done card
sorting using a mechanical device is not the issue. The issue is about
the method. In this case, the method involves examining one item at a
time and then placing it at a certain location depending on some
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 21 comments |
headers
Eric Scheid | 1 Jun 2003 09:12
Picon

Re: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

On 1/6/03 9:03 AM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau <at> compuserve.com> wrote:

>> I've done "card sorts" with users many times, and never have we used some
>> mechanical device for processing the cards into some arrangement determined
>> by intrinsic qualities represented on those cards.
>> 
> First, the concept of sorting. Sorting is about order. But IAs use card sort
> for its grouping effect. Thus, I said IAs use an ordering tool for grouping
> purpose.

Do you mean 'order' as in 'chaos', or as in 'sequence'? By what you've
written so far I'm assuming the latter. I'd agree with the former, but not
necessarily the latter. Grouping, without internal sequencing, can be an end
in itself, and the dictionary shows that that is a commonly accepted meaning
of the word.

> The issue is about the method. In this case, the method involves examining one
> item at a time and then placing it at a certain location depending on some
> criteria.

On the contrary, I'd say the IA Card Sort methodology is a process of
discovering just what those locations are. At the beginning of a card sort
there are *no* "certain locations". That's one of the main reasons for doing
the exercise.

>> Not quite sure what you mean by "the ultimate goal of sorting".
> 
> When order is not observed, there is no sorting.

If you mean sequence, then you are denying one dictionary meaning of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Listera | 1 Jun 2003 09:29
Favicon

Re: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

"Eric Scheid" wrote:

> My kitchen has a drawer with sub-divisions. In each sub-division there are
> knives, forks, and spoons. There is no sequencing intended, required, or
> desired.

Do you not place the most frequently used items in the most easily
accessible spots?

Ziya
Nullius in Verba 

------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l <at> asis.org
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Eric Scheid | 1 Jun 2003 09:38
Picon

Re: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

On 1/6/03 5:29 PM, "Listera" <listera <at> rcn.com> wrote:

>> My kitchen has a drawer with sub-divisions. In each sub-division there are
>> knives, forks, and spoons. There is no sequencing intended, required, or
>> desired.
> 
> Do you not place the most frequently used items in the most easily
> accessible spots?

Yes - the commonly used implements are all in the top drawer, the less
commonly used in the second drawer, and the bottom drawer is reserved for
all those items I never really expect to need until two days after I throw
them out. 

There is however an ongoing dispute as to which sub-division is used for
which category: should it be forks|knives|spoons|long-knives, respecting the
common paradigm of arranging cutlery as fork|plate|knife|spoon, or should it
be forks|spoons|knives|long-knives, so that the members of the more abstract
class of "knives" are near each other. Note that this wouldn't be an issue
if we subscribed to the nonsense which is fork|spoon-over-plate|knife ;-)

Just don't get me started over whether cocktail forks should be in with the
forks or in with the tea-spoons!

e.

------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
donna | 1 Jun 2003 13:50

RE: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

OK - I've figured out how to solve this. Let's from now call it 'card 
grouping' and get some sleep.

Donna

On 31 May 2003 at 19:03, Boniface Lau wrote:

> First, the concept of sorting. Sorting is about order. But IAs use
> card sort for its grouping effect. Thus, I said IAs use an ordering
> tool for grouping purpose.
> 

------------
When replying, please *trim your post* as much as possible.
*Plain text, please; NO Attachments

Searchable list archive:   http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list -- post to: Sigia-l <at> asis.org
Changes to subscription: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Karl Fast | 1 Jun 2003 14:52
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

> First, the concept of sorting. Sorting is about order. But IAs use
> card sort for its grouping effect. Thus, I said IAs use an ordering
> tool for grouping purpose.

First, if we decided to split hairs does that mean we should
retroactively edit the IA literature to read "card grouping" instead
of "card sorting?" That seems kinda silly to me...

Second, the dictionary clearly indicates that "sort" and "sorting"
means *both* "to order" and "to group." 

So we're all right. Hallelujah! ;-)

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sorting

sort:

   1. A group of persons or things of the same general character; a kind.

   2. Character or nature: books of all sorts.

   <..various other definitions not included..>

   7. An act or instance of sorting

sorted, sorting, sorts

   1. To arrange according to class, kind, or size; classify. See
      Synonyms at arrange.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Derek R | 1 Jun 2003 22:11

Re: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

	 
>| When order is not observed . . . .

I have a good feeling about the direction of this thread, that it might
teach us something, as builders of Information Architectures and people
genuinely engaged in producing real and solid structures from which
information can be exchanged and communicated without bumping into
obstacles.

My point is, IAs have a pre-conceived idea what they want out of a
particular encounter with a user (whatever you choose to label the
encounter) -- that the IA has, going in (a priori), a 'deliverable' in
mind. IAs call a lot of encounters like these 'exercises' (for instance,
a 'card-sorting exercise'), whose labeling further underscores the
*pre-arrangement* involved with this IA-sensibility. The tendency to
operate this way, this behavior, is counter-productive simply because it
eschews the existing 'way' or 'order' of things (what is real) *in
favor* of its own matrix and pre-conception. This is done because it is
the easiest thing to do. The 'deliverable-method' (my term), results in
something one can walk-away with, something tangible which indicates
labor has been performed (so you know as a business whether you got your
money's-worth or not, a ROI-strategy).

Clearly we can observe a strong pocket of IAs with LIS-backgrounds and
roots which have taught them (any casual glance at their educational
curriculum will show) how to produce deliverables and how to facilitate
others in doing the same -- for instance, the 'reference-interview'
where the librarian sits down with a person and 'helps' them build a
'research-deliverable' as a road-map/check-list for stability/authority.
The aim is *always* to end up at a fixed and predetermined
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Boniface Lau | 2 Jun 2003 01:28
Picon

RE: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements


> From: lists <at> mk27.com [mailto:lists <at> mk27.com]
> Todd R. Warfel
> 
[...]
>
> Grouping is about putting like things into piles or groups.
> Ordering, on the other hand, is about itemizing things in a
> hierarchy (e.g. 1-5, best to worst).

Ordering things does not necessary mean arranging them in a hierarchy.
While hierarchy is a way of ordering things, not all orders are
hierarchical.

> 
> In card sorts done on content inventories, we typically don't want 
> participants to order things, we want them to group them. 

But for participants to successfully group things, they have to
observe the order among groups. 

For illustration, let's say there is a stack of cards each with a
2-digit number. The task is to group those cards by the first digit of
the 2-digit number. So, let's walk through the process step by step to
group the following cards: 12, 33, 21, 28.

1st, we have the "12" card. Since it is the first card, we just place
it somewhere on the table. We have one group of one card (12).

2nd, we have the "33" card. For whatever reason, we decide to place it
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Boniface Lau | 2 Jun 2003 01:28
Picon

RE: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements


> From: sigia-l-admin <at> asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin <at> asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric Scheid
>  
> On 1/6/03 9:03 AM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau <at> compuserve.com>
> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > First, the concept of sorting. Sorting is about order. But IAs use
> > card sort for its grouping effect. Thus, I said IAs use an
> > ordering tool for grouping purpose.
>  
> Do you mean 'order' as in 'chaos', or as in 'sequence'? 

I mean sequence.

> By what you've written so far I'm assuming the latter. I'd agree
> with the former, but not necessarily the latter. Grouping, without
> internal sequencing, can be an end in itself,

It is not about the order(sequence) of items within a group.

It is about the order(sequence) of groups.

> and the dictionary shows that that is a commonly accepted meaning of
> the word.
> 
> > The issue is about the method. In this case, the method involves
> > examining one item at a time and then placing it at a certain
> > location depending on some criteria.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Eric Scheid | 2 Jun 2003 03:29
Picon

Re: [Sigia-l] card sorting: dealing with multiple placements

On 2/6/03 9:28 AM, "Boniface Lau" <boniface_lau <at> compuserve.com> wrote:

>> At the beginning of a card sort there are *no* "certain locations".
> 
> I am not sure what you meant by "no certain locations".

predetermined, known before hand...

If I gave a stack of items to a user and asked them to sort them into
groups, I cannot be certain there would be certain specific categories.
Users are like that sometimes.

>> By what you've written so far I'm assuming the latter. I'd agree
>> with the former, but not necessarily the latter. Grouping, without
>> internal sequencing, can be an end in itself,
> 
> It is not about the order(sequence) of items within a group.
> It is about the order(sequence) of groups.

As you've well explained in your immediate recent message. Which when I read
it I thought "Well, that was out of left field." It's an interesting point,
worth considering...

I'd dispute your contention that order (sequence) must be observed (obeyed).
Users do indeed need to be mindful of just where their little stacks of
cards are physically on the table so as to add more cards to those stacks
(never do a card sort in the dark ;-), but they don't particularly care or
require that that arrangement of stacks observe some form of sequence.

How would you expect users to sequence the following groups:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane