Re: Card sorting!!!
Donna Spencer <donna <at> maadmob.net>
2009-03-04 20:46:20 GMT
There's no conflict, they just are different things, like dogs and cats
are. They have the same core aspect of making groups from smaller pieces.
Card sorting is usually done with the users of a product. They may
undertake the sort as individuals or within small groups. Always more
than one person/group will do the sort. You (the person who conducts the
research) analyse the results from the activity to look for similarities
and differences in approach that will help you make decisions about a
project - usually to determine how content will be organised on
something like a website.
Affinity diagramming is usually done with a team of folks who work
together. Its most common use is to analyse research data such as user
research or usability testing. An affinity diagramming session is done
once, by a team, to identify broad patterns and findings from lots of
small data like research observations. It doesn't have to be about
building concensus, but about building an understanding.
So they both have at their core that someone sorts granular data into
groups. But they are done by different people for different reasons.
And the only reason the distinction matters is one of communication. If
you say to your boss - 'hey, I want to do a card sort', that means a
different set of steps and outcomes compared to saying 'let's do an
affinity diagramming session'.
Donna
Tom Kerwin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I must admit, I can't tell what the conflict is between the two techniques.
>
> Having looked into the links that William posted about Karen Holtzblatt's
> version of Affinity Diagramming, it seems to me that there's a key
> difference in the different groups of people the two techniques are most
> usefully applied to.
>
> It seems that Affinity Diagramming is used (at least by Karen's team) to
> gain understanding, consensus and buy-in from different parties within an
> organisation. Card Sorting (at least the way I've used it so far) is focused
> on gaining understanding of how users or customers outside the organisation
> understand conceptual groupings. Then you can compare the way the customers
> think with the way the staff (or expert users) think.
>
> I'm sure each technique could be used with the other group of people. I've
> done card sorting with staff before. I tend to include card sorting as part
> of user testing sessions, so it's generally done with an individual. It
> seems that affinity diagramming would need more of a focus group type
> setting.
>
> Having seen this info, I'm really keen to try affinity diagramming with
> difficult clients. I hope it can help avoid some of the political problems
> that often crop up in larger organisations.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Capell [mailto:psc <at> sei.cmu.edu]
> Sent: 04 March 2009 15:05
> To: User-Centred Design (Discussion)
> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>
> Hi,
>
> Ok, but in my original post on this comparison, I did mention something
> called "nominal group technique," which has to do with making the "category
> collapsing*" activity into a "private thing" (to be adjudicated after the
> fact). Anyway, I suspect that my raising the "affinity diagramming" idea may
> simply be an irritating comparison to those who feel enamored of "Card
> Sorting," so I think I'll drop this thread. Thank you for your reply.
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diarmad McNally [mailto:dermmcnally <at> yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:01 AM
> To: User-Centred Design (Discussion); Peter Capell
> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>
>
> Hi
>
> Generally, card sorting is carried out on individuals while affinity
> diagramming is a group activity. This means that AD results are subject to
> group dynamics to reach consensus while this is not so for CS as the
> responses are individual and it is the analysis which provides the
> 'consensus' which is reflective of the group.
>
> Diarmad
>
> --- On Wed, 4/3/09, Peter Capell <psc <at> sei.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Peter Capell <psc <at> sei.cmu.edu>
>> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>> To: "Diarmad McNally" <dermmcnally <at> yahoo.com>, "User-Centred Design
>> (Discussion)" <ucd <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk>
>> Date: Wednesday, 4 March, 2009, 2:49 PM Good Morning,
>>
>> Sorry, I failed to comprehend the _difference_ you are alluding to.
>> "Consensus" and "individual response" achieving it = "consensus."
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diarmad McNally [mailto:dermmcnally <at> yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:03 AM
>> To: User-Centred Design (Discussion)
>> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>>
>>
>> Morning,
>>
>> Another interesting difference between card sorting and affinity
>> diagramming is that the latter attempts to achieve consensus in a
>> group and is therefore subject to group bias (e.g. strong characters
>> leading the group etc.) while the consensus agreed through card
>> sorting is aggregated from individual responses.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Diarmad McNally
>> Interaction Design Studio
>>
>> t: (+44) 07808 297289
>> e: diarmad <at> ixdStudio.com
>> w: www.ixdStudio.com
>> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ixdStudio
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On Tue, 3/3/09, William Hudson
>> <william.hudson <at> syntagm.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> From: William Hudson
>>>
>> <william.hudson <at> syntagm.co.uk>
>>
>>> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>>> To: "User-Centred Design (Discussion)"
>>>
>> <ucd <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk>
>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009, 4:10 PM Peter -
>>>
>>> While I agree that there are some similarities between
>>>
>> card sorting
>>
>>> and affinity diagramming, I don't think that one
>>>
>> lead to the other.
>>
>>> Affinity diagramming comes from the KJ Method which
>>>
>> was only invented
>>
>>> in the 1960s. Philosophers, psychologists and
>>>
>> information scientists
>>
>>> (in various guises) have been categorising concepts
>>>
>> for many hundreds
>>
>>> of years before that. In fact, even the methods of
>>>
>> cluster analysis
>>
>>> and tree diagrams commonly used to process card sorts
>>>
>> predate the KJ
>>
>>> Method (although they came after Aristotle<g>).
>>>
>>> Also, there are some very important differences
>>>
>> between card sorting
>>
>>> and affinity diagramming. As it happens, I cover these
>>>
>> in my web
>>
>>> design course at CHI 2009 in Boston - see
>>>
>>>
>> http://chi2009.org/Attending/AdvanceProgram/courseC119.htm
>>
>>> Basically, card sorting is trying to investigate
>>>
>> categories and
>>
>>> terminology while affinity diagramming is much more
>>>
>> about concepts,
>>
>>> descriptions and the voice of the customer (at least
>>>
>> as practised by
>>
>>> Karen Holtzblatt and her colleagues). Anyone
>>>
>> interested in affinity
>>
>>> diagramming should have a look at Jared Spools web
>>>
>> page on the subject
>>
>>> (http://www.uie.com/articles/kj_technique/) and either
>>>
>> a Karen
>>
>>> Holtzblatt's books on contextual design.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> William Hudson
>>> Syntagm Ltd
>>> Design for Usability
>>> UK 01235-522859
>>> World +44-1235-522859
>>> US Toll Free 1-866-SYNTAGM
>>> mailto:william.hudson <at> syntagm.co.uk
>>> http://www.syntagm.co.uk
>>> skype:williamhudsonskype
>>>
>>> Syntagm is a limited company registered in England and
>>>
>> Wales.
>>
>>> Registered number: 1895345. Registered office: 10
>>>
>> Oxford Road,
>>
>>> Abingdon OX14 2DS.
>>>
>>> Advances in Card Sorting - One Day Workshop
>>> - London, 21 April 2009
>>> http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/csadvances.shtml
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Peter Capell [mailto:psc <at> sei.cmu.edu]
>>>> Sent: 03 March 2009 15:19
>>>> To: UCD
>>>> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Card sorting is apparently a slight modification
>>>>
>> to
>>
>>> "affinity
>>>
>>>> diagramming" about which there is much
>>>>
>> (older)
>>
>>> literature in the area
>>>
>>>> of "meeting management." I think it is
>>>>
>> a
>>
>>> very powerful technique (when
>>>
>>>> the group/team/users are cooperative). Often it
>>>>
>> is
>>
>>> coupled with first a
>>>
>>>> session of brainstorming, which when conducted by
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>> rules is a very
>>>
>>>> helpful adjunct. There are even permutations of
>>>>
>>> brainstorming/card
>>>
>>>> sorting (affinity diagramming) called
>>>>
>> "nominal
>>
>>> group technique" which
>>>
>>>> allows for differences in personality type.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---
>>> You are currently subscribed to ucd as:
>>> dermmcnally <at> yahoo.com.
>>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>>>
>>>
>> leave-44499-378.8bf1211fd4b7b94528899de0a43b9fb3 <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to ucd as: psc <at> sei.cmu.edu.
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>> leave-44522-310.06eb61b839a0cefee4967c67ccb099dc <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk
>>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ucd as: tom <at> moodia.com.
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-44543-861.f9a40a4780f5e1306c46f1c8daecee3b <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ucd as: donna <at> maadmob.net.
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-44548-389.c86a7ee3d8ef0b551ed58e354a836f2b <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk
>
>
--
--
Donna Spencer - Maadmob
donna <at> maadmob.net
02 6255 4993 / 0409778693
http://maadmob.com.au/
http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/cardsorting/
---
You are currently subscribed to ucd as: gcwu-UCD <at> gmane.org.
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-44578-427.18997733ec258a9fcaf239cc55d53363 <at> listman.syntagm.co.uk
RSS Feed