We started this business to help you make things easy to find. User research is all about the insights. That’s the buzz we’re looking for.
We make premium tools for information architecture professionals. Our tools are powerful and so this inherently involves a bit of complexity under the hood. Like you, our job is to hide unnecessary complexity. Generally we think we’ve struck a good balance and give help when it’s needed, but recently we’ve had some internal debate about whether we can make it even easier – particularly around analysis.
For example, we think participant centric analysis is just awesome. This is a new method we have devised for another view on your card sort results. At a high level, it picks the most popular actual response submitted by a participant and then attempts to pick the second and third most popular alternative grouping strategies submitted by other participants. It treats all the participants as Information Architects and treats their submitted groups as votes. We are conscious however that this may not be an easy concept to get your head around.
Dendrograms have also confused us no end in the past because occasionally they walk the fine line between presenting data and inventing it. In the end we invented a newer and more skeptical Dendrogram algorithm (AAM) so we now have a good idea about the difference between AAM and the more traditional BMM algorithm, for instance. I appreciate this isn’t your usual bedside reading though (although now that we all have the internet with us in bed it seems that everything has become fair game for bedtime reading!).
Pietrees are another method we’ve invented to better visualise tree testing results; to help us get to the insights faster. We think it’s pretty intuitive (and good looking to boot), but of course it’s your opinion that counts the most.
So, dear Optimal Workshop customers – what would make it even easier for you to gain insight from our analysis tools?