Card descriptions: Testing the effect of contextual information in card sorts
The key purpose of running a card sort is to learn something new about how people conceptualize and organize the information that’s found on your website. The insights you gain from running a card sort can then help you develop a site structure with content labels or headings that best represent the way your users think about this information. Card sorts are in essence a simple technique, however it’s the details of the sort that can determine the quality of your results.
Adding context to cards in OptimalSort – descriptions, links and images
In most cases, each item in a card sort has only a short label, but there are instances where you may wish to add additional context to the items in your sort. Currently, the cards tab in OptimalSort allows you to include a tooltip description, a link within the tooltip description or to format the card as an image (with or without a label).
We generally don’t recommend using tooltip descriptions and links, unless you have a specific reason to do so. It’s likely that they’ll provide your participants with more information than they would normally have when navigating your website, which may in turn influence your results by leading participants to a particular solution.
Legitimate reasons that you may want to use descriptions and links include situations where it’s not possible or practical to translate complex or technical labels (for example, medical, financial, legal or scientific terms) into plain language, or if you’re using a card sort to understand your participants’ preferences or priorities.
If you do decide to include descriptions in your sort, it’s important that you follow the same guidelines that you would otherwise follow for writing card labels. They should be easy for your participants to understand and you should avoid obvious patterns, for example repeating words and phrases, or including details that refer to the current structure of the website.
A quick survey of how card descriptions are used in OptimalSort
I was curious to find out how often people were including descriptions in their card sorts, so I asked our development team to look into this data. It turns out that around 15% of cards created in OptimalSort have at least some text entered in the description field. In order to dig into the data a bit further, both Ania and I reviewed a random sample of recent sorts and noted how descriptions were being used in each case.
We found that out of the descriptions that we reviewed, 40% (6% of the total cards) had text that should not have impacted the sort results. Most often, these cards simply had the card label repeated in the description (to be honest, we’re not entirely sure why so many descriptions are being used this way! But it’s now in our roadmap to stop this from happening — stay tuned!). Approximately 20% (3% of the total cards) used descriptions to add context without obviously leading participants, however another 40% of cards have descriptions that may well lead to biased results. On occasion, this included linking to the current content or using what we assumed to be the current top level heading within the description.
Testing the effect of card descriptions on sort results
So, how much influence could potentially leading card descriptions have on the results of a card sort? I decided to put it to the test by running a series of card sorts to compare the effect of different descriptions. As I also wanted to test the effect of linking card descriptions to existing content, I had to base the sort on a live website. In addition, I wanted to make sure that the card labels and descriptions were easily comprehensible by a general audience, but not so familiar that participants were highly likely to sort the cards in a similar manner.
I selected the government immigration website New Zealand Now as my test case. This site, which provides information for prospective and new immigrants to New Zealand, fit the above criteria and was likely unfamiliar to potential participants.
Navigating the New Zealand Now website
When I reviewed the New Zealand Now site, I found that the top level navigation labels were clear and easy to understand for me personally. Of course, this is especially important when much of your target audience is likely to be non-native English speaking! On the whole, the second level headings were also well-labeled, which meant that they should translate to cards that participants were able to group relatively easily.
There were, however, a few headings such as “High quality” and “Life experiences”, both found under “Study in New Zealand”, which become less clear when removed from the context of their current location in the site structure. These headings would be particularly useful to include in the test sorts, as I predicted that participants would be more likely to rely on card descriptions in the cases where the card label was ambiguous.
I selected 30 headings to use as card labels from under the sections “Choose New Zealand”, “Move to New Zealand”, “Live in New Zealand”, “Work in New Zealand” and “Study in New Zealand” and tweaked the language slightly, so that the labels were more generic.
I then created four separate sorts in OptimalSort:Round 1: No description: Each card showed a heading only — this functioned as the control sort
Round 2: Site section in description: Each card showed a heading with the site section in the description
Round 3: Short description: Each card showed a heading with a short description — these were taken from the New Zealand Now topic landing pages
Round 4:Link in description: Each card showed a heading with a link to the current content page on the New Zealand Now website
For each sort, I recruited 30 participants. Each participant could only take part in one of the sorts.
What the results showed
An interesting initial finding was that when we queried the participants following the sort, only around 40% said they noticed the tooltip descriptions and even fewer participants stated that they had used them as an aid to help complete the sort.
Of course, what people say they do does not always reflect what they do in practice! To measure the effect that different descriptions had on the results of this sort, I compared how frequently cards were sorted with other cards from their respective site sections across the different rounds.Let’s take a look at the “Study in New Zealand” section that was mentioned above. Out of the five cards in this section,”Where & what to study”, “Everyday student life” and “After you graduate” were sorted pretty consistently, regardless of whether a description was provided or not. The following charts show the average frequency with which each card was sorted with other cards from this section. For example in the control round, “Where & what to study” was sorted with “After you graduate” 76% of the time and with “Everyday day student life” 70% of the time, but was sorted with “Life experiences” or “High quality” each only 10% of the time. This meant that the average sort frequency for this card was 42%.
On the other hand, the cards “High quality” and “Life experiences” were sorted much less frequently with other cards in this section, with the exception of the second sort, which included the site section in the description.These results suggest that including the existing site section in the card description did influence how participants sorted these cards — confirming our prediction! Interestingly, this round had the fewest number of participants who stated that they used the descriptions to help them complete the sort (only 10%, compared to 40% in round 3 and 20% in round 4).Also of note is that adding a link to the existing content did not seem to increase the likelihood that cards were sorted more frequently with other cards from the same section. Reasons for this could include that participants did not want to navigate to another website (due to time-consciousness in completing the task, or concern that they’d lose their place in the sort) or simply that it can be difficult to open a link from the tooltip pop-up.
What we can take away from these results
This quick investigation into the impact of descriptions illustrates some of the intricacies around using additional context in your card sorts, and why this should always be done with careful consideration. It’s interesting that we correctly predicted some of these results, but that in this case, other uses of the description had little effect at all. And the results serve as a good reminder that participants can often be influenced by factors that they don’t even recognise themselves!If you do decide to use card descriptions in your cards sorts, here are some guidelines that we recommend you follow:
Avoid repeating words and phrases, participants may sort cards by pattern-matching rather than based on the actual content
Avoid alluding to a predetermined structure, such as including references to the current site structure
If it’s important that participants use the descriptions to complete the sort, you should mention this in your task instructions. It may also be worth asking them a post-survey question to validate if they used them or not
We’d love to hear your thoughts on how we tested the effects of card descriptions and the results that we got. Would you have done anything differently?Have you ever completed a card sort only to realize later that you’d inadvertently biased your results? Or have you used descriptions in your card sorts to meet a genuine need? Do you think there’s a case to make descriptions more obvious than just a tooltip, so that when they are used legitimately, most participants don’t miss this information?
Are your visitors really getting the most out of your website? Tree testing (or sometimes referred to as reverse card sorting) takes away the guesswork by telling you how easily, or not, people can find information on your website. Discover why Treejack is the tool of choice for website architects.
What’s tree testing and why does it matter? 🌲 👀
Whether you’re building a website from scratch or improving an existing website, tree testing helps you design your website architecture with confidence. How? Tools like Treejack use analysis to help assess how findable your content is for people visiting your website.
It helps answer burning questions like:
Do my labels make sense?
Is my content grouped logically?
Can people find what they want easily and quickly? If not, why not?
Treejack provides invaluable intel for any Information Architect. Why? Knowing where and why people get lost trying to find your content, gives you a much better chance of fixing the actual problem. And the more easily people can find what they’re looking for, the better their experience which is ultimately better for everyone.
How’s tree testing work? 🌲🌳🌿
Tree testing can be broken down into two main parts:
The Tree - Your tree is essentially your site map – a text-only version of your website structure.
The Task - Your task is the activity you ask participants to complete by clicking through your tree and choosing the information they think is right. Tools like Treejack analyse the data generated from doing the task to build a picture of how people actually navigated your content in order to try and achieve your task. It tells you if they got it right or wrong, the path they took and the time it took them.
Whether you’re new to tree testing or already a convert, effective tree testing using Treejack has some key steps.
Step 1. The ‘ Why’: Purpose and goals of tree testing
Ask yourself what part of your information architecture needs improvement – is it your whole website or just parts of it? Also think about your audience, they’re the ones you’re trying to improve the website for so the more you know about their needs the better.
Tip: Make the most of what tree testing offers to improve your website by building it into your overall design project plan
Step 2. The ‘How’: Build your tree
You can build your tree using two main approaches:
Create your tree in spreadsheet and import it into Treejack or
Build your tree in Treejack itself, using the labels and structure of your website.
Tip: Your category labels are known as ‘parent nodes’. Your information labels are known as ‘child nodes’.
Step 3. The ‘What’: Write your tasks
The quality of your tasks will be reflected in the usefulness of your data so it’s worth making sure you create tasks that really test what you want to improve.
Tip: Use plain language that feels natural and try to write your tasks in a way that reflects the way people who visit your website might actually think when they are trying to find information on your site.
Step 4. The ‘Who’: Recruit participants
The quality of your data will largely depend on the quality of your participants. You want people who are as close to your target audience as possible and with the right attitude - willing and committed to being involved.
Tip: Consider offering some kind of incentive to participants – it shows you value their involvement.
Step 5. The ‘insights’: Interpret your results
Now for the fun part – making sense of the results. Treejack presents the data from your tree testing as a series of tables and visualizations. You can download them in a spreadsheet in their raw format or customized to your needs.
Tip: Use the results to gain quick, practical insights you can act on right away or as a starter to dive deeper into the data.
When should I use tree testing? ⌛
Tree testing is useful whenever you want to find out if your website content is labelled and organised in a way that’s easy to understand. What’s more it can be applied for any website, big (10+ levels with 10000s of labels) or small (3 levels and 22 labels) and any size in between. Our advice for using Treejack is simply this: test big, test small, test often.
We love getting stuck into scary, hairy problems to make things better here at Trade Me. One challenge for us in particular is how best to navigate customer reaction to any change we make to the site, the app, the terms and conditions, and so on. Our customers are passionate both about the service we provide — an online auction and marketplace — and its place in their lives, and are rightly forthcoming when they're displeased or frustrated. We therefore rely on our Customer Service (CS) team to give customers a voice, and to respond with patience and skill to customer problems ranging from incorrectly listed items to reports of abusive behavior.
The CS team uses a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system, Trade Me Admin, to monitor support requests and manage customer accounts. As the spectrum of Trade Me's services and the complexity of the public website have grown rapidly, the CRM system has, to be blunt, been updated in ways which have not always been the prettiest. Links for new tools and reports have simply been added to existing pages, and old tools for services we no longer operate have not always been removed. Thus, our latest focus has been to improve the user experience of the CRM system for our CS team.
And though on the surface it looks like we're working on a product with only 90 internal users, our changes will have flow on effects to tens of thousands of our members at any given time (from a total number of around 3.6 million members).
The challenges of designing customer service systems
We face unique challenges designing customer service systems. Robert Schumacher from GfK summarizes these problems well. I’ve paraphrased him here and added an issue of my own:
1. Customer service centres are high volume environments — Our CS team has thousands of customer interactions every day, and and each team member travels similar paths in the CRM system.
2. Wrong turns are amplified — With so many similar interactions, a system change that adds a minute more to processing customer queries could slow down the whole team and result in delays for customers.
3. Two people relying on the same system — When the CS team takes a phone call from a customer, the CRM system is serving both people: the CS person who is interacting with it, and the caller who directs the interaction. Trouble is, the caller can't see the paths the system is forcing the CS person to take. For example, in a previous job a client’s CS team would always ask callers two or three extra security questions — not to confirm identites, but to cover up the delay between answering the call and the right page loading in the system.
4. Desktop clutter — As a result of the plethora of tools and reports and systems, the desktop of the average CS team member is crowded with open windows and tabs. They have to remember where things are and also how to interact with the different tools and reports, all of which may have been created independently (ie. work differently). This presents quite the cognitive load.
5. CS team members are expert users — They use the system every day, and will all have their own techniques for interacting with it quickly and accurately. They've also probably come up with their own solutions to system problems, which they might be very comfortable with. As Schumacher says, 'A critical mistake is to discount the expert and design for the novice. In contact centers, novices become experts very quickly.'
6. Co-design is risky — Co-design workshops, where the users become the designers, are all the rage, and are usually pretty effective at getting great ideas quickly into systems. But expert users almost always end up regurgitating the system they're familiar with, as they've been trained by repeated use of systems to think in fixed ways.
7. Training is expensive — Complex systems require more training so if your call centre has high churn (ours doesn’t – most staff stick around for years) then you’ll be spending a lot of money. …and the one I’ve added:
8. Powerful does not mean easy to learn — The ‘it must be easy to use and intuitive’ design rationale is often the cause of badly designed CRM systems. Designers mistakenly design something simple when they should be designing something powerful. Powerful is complicated, dense, and often less easy to learn, but once mastered lets staff really motor.
Our project focus
Our improvement of Trade Me Admin is focused on fixing the shattered IA and restructuring the key pages to make them perform even better, bringing them into a new code framework. We're not redesigning the reports, tools, code or even the interaction for most of the reports, as this will be many years of effort. Watching our own staff use Trade Me Admin is like watching someone juggling six or seven things.
The system requires them to visit multiple pages, hold multiple facts in their head, pattern and problem-match across those pages, and follow their professional intuition to get to the heart of a problem. Where the system works well is on some key, densely detailed hub pages. Where it works badly, staff have to navigate click farms with arbitrary link names, have to type across the URL to get to hidden reports, and generally expend more effort on finding the answer than on comprehending the answer.
Groundwork
The first thing that we did was to sit with CS and watch them work and get to know the common actions they perform. The random nature of the IA and the plethora of dead links and superseded reports became apparent. We surveyed teams, providing them with screen printouts and three highlighter pens to colour things as green (use heaps), orange (use sometimes) and red (never use). From this, we were able to immediately remove a lot of noise from the new IA. We also saw that specific teams used certain links but that everyone used a core set. Initially focussing on the core set, we set about understanding the tasks under those links.
The complexity of the job soon became apparent – with a complex system like Trade Me Admin, it is possible to do the same thing in many different ways. Most CRM systems are complex and detailed enough for there to be more than one way to achieve the same end and often, it’s not possible to get a definitive answer, only possible to ‘build a picture’. There’s no one-to-one mapping of task to link. Links were also often arbitrarily named: ‘SQL Lookup’ being an example. The highly-trained user base are dependent on muscle memory in finding these links. This meant that when asked something like: “What and where is the policing enquiry function?”, many couldn’t tell us what or where it was, but when they needed the report it contained they found it straight away.
Sort of difficult
Therefore, it came as little surprise that staff found the subsequent card sort task quite hard. We renamed the links to better describe their associated actions, and of course, they weren't in the same location as in Trade Me Admin. So instead of taking the predicted 20 minutes, the sort was taking upwards of 40 minutes. Not great when staff are supposed to be answering customer enquiries!
We noticed some strong trends in the results, with links clustering around some of the key pages and tasks (like 'member', 'listing', 'review member financials', and so on). The results also confirmed something that we had observed — that there is a strong split between two types of information: emails/tickets/notes and member info/listing info/reports.
We built and tested two IAs
After card sorting, we created two new IAs, and then customized one of the IAs for each of the three CS teams, giving us IAs to test. Each team was then asked to complete two tree tests, with 50% doing one first and 50% doing the other first. At first glance, the results of the tree test were okay — around 61% — but 'Could try harder'. We saw very little overall difference between the success of the two structures, but definitely some differences in task success. And we also came across an interesting quirk in the results.
Closer analysis of the pie charts with an expert in Trade Me Admin showed that some ‘wrong’ answers would give part of the picture required. In some cases so much so that I reclassified answers as ‘correct’ as they were more right than wrong. Typically, in a real world situation, staff might check several reports in order to build a picture. This ambiguous nature is hard to replicate in a tree test which wants definitive yes or no answers. Keeping the tasks both simple to follow and comprehensive proved harder than we expected.
For example, we set a task that asked participants to investigate whether two customers had been bidding on each other's auctions. When we looked at the pietree (see screenshot below), we noticed some participants had clicked on 'Search Members', thinking they needed to locate the customer accounts, when the task had presumed that the customers had already been found. This is a useful insight into writing more comprehensive tasks that we can take with us into our next tests.
What’s clear from analysis is that although it’s possible to provide definitive answers for a typical site’s IAs, for a CRM like Trade Me Admin this is a lot harder. Devising and testing the structure of a CRM has proved a challenge for our highly trained audience, who are used to the current system and naturally find it difficult to see and do things differently. Once we had reclassified some of the answers as ‘correct’ one of the two trees was a clear winner — it had gone from 61% to 69%. The other tree had only improved slightly, from 61% to 63%.
There were still elements with it that were performing sub-optimally in our winning structure, though. Generally, the problems were to do with labelling, where, in some cases, we had attempted to disambiguate those ‘SQL lookup’-type labels but in the process, confused the team. We were left with the dilemma of whether to go with the new labels and make the system initially harder to use for staff but easier to learn for new staff, or stick with the old labels, which are harder to learn. My view is that any new system is going to see an initial performance dip, so we might as well change the labels now and make it better.
The importance of carefully structuring questions in a tree test has been highlighted, particularly in light of the ‘start anywhere/go anywhere’ nature of a CRM. The diffuse but powerful nature of a CRM means that careful consideration of tree test answer options needs to be made, in order to decide ‘how close to 100% correct answer’ you want to get.
Development work has begun so watch this space
It's great to see that our research is influencing the next stage of the CRM system, and we're looking forward to seeing it go live. Of course, our work isn't over— and nor would we want it to be! Alongside the redevelopment of the IA, I've been redesigning the key pages from Trade Me Admin, and continuing to conduct user research, including first click testing using Chalkmark.
This project has been governed by a steadily developing set of design principles, focused on complex CRM systems and the specific needs of their audience. Two of these principles are to reduce navigation and to design for experts, not novices, which means creating dense, detailed pages. It's intense, complex, and rewarding design work, and we'll be exploring this exciting space in more depth in upcoming posts.
Taylor Swift's music has captivated millions, but what do her fans really think about her extensive catalog? We've crunched the numbers, analyzed the data, and uncovered some fascinating insights into how Swifties perceive and categorize their favorite artist's work. Let's dive in!
The great debate: openers, encores, and everything in between ⋆.˚✮🎧✮˚.⋆
Our study asked fans to categorize Swift's songs into potential opening numbers, encores, and songs they'd rather not hear (affectionately dubbed "Nah" songs). The results? As diverse as Swift's discography itself!
Opening with a bang 💥
Swifties seem to agree that high-energy tracks make for the best concert openers, but the results are more nuanced than previously suggested. "Shake It Off" emerged as the clear favorite for opening a concert, with 17 votes. "Love Story" follows closely behind with 14 votes, showing that nostalgia indeed plays a significant role. Interestingly, both "Cruel Summer" and "Blank Space" tied for third place with 13 votes each.
This mix of songs from different eras of Swift's career suggests that fans appreciate both her newer hits and classic favorites when it comes to kicking off a show. The strong showing for "Love Story" does indeed speak to the power of nostalgia in concert experiences. It's worth noting that "...Ready for It?", while a popular song, received fewer votes (9) for the opening slot than might have been expected.
Encore extravaganza 🎤
When it comes to encores, fans seem to favor a diverse mix of Taylor Swift's discography, with a surprising tie at the top. "Slut!" (Taylor's Version), "exile", "Guilty as Sin?", and "Bad Blood (Remix)" all received the highest number of votes with 13 each. This variety showcases the breadth of Swift's career and the different aspects of her artistry that resonate with fans for a memorable show finale.
Close behind are "evermore", "Wildest Dreams", "ME!", "Love Story", and "Lavender Haze", each garnering 12 votes. It's particularly interesting to see both newer tracks and classic hits like "Love Story" maintaining strong popularity for the encore slot. This balance suggests that Swifties appreciate both nostalgia and Swift's artistic evolution when it comes to closing out a concert experience.
The "Nah" list 😒
Interestingly, some of Taylor Swift's tracks found themselves on the "Nah" list, indicating that fans might prefer not to hear them in a concert setting. "Clara Bow" tops this category with 13 votes, closely followed by "You're On Your Own, Kid", "You're Losing Me", and "Delicate", each receiving 12 votes.
This doesn't necessarily mean fans dislike these songs - they might just feel they're not well-suited for live performances or don't fit as well into a concert setlist. It's particularly surprising to see "Delicate" on this list, given its popularity. The presence of both newer tracks like "Clara Bow" and older ones like "Delicate" suggests that the "Nah" list isn't tied to a specific era of Swift's career, but rather to individual song preferences in a live concert context.
It's worth noting that even popular songs can end up on this list, highlighting the complex relationship fans have with different tracks in various contexts. This data provides an interesting insight into how Swifties perceive songs differently when considering them for a live performance versus general listening.
1. The "Midnights" Connection: Songs from "Midnights" like "Midnight Rain", "The Black Dog", and "The Tortured Poets Department" showed high similarity in set list placement. This suggests fans see these tracks working well in similar parts of a concert, perhaps as a cohesive segment showcasing the album's distinct sound.
2. Cross-album transitions: There's an intriguing connection between "Guilty as Sin?" and "exile", with a high similarity percentage. This indicates fans see these songs from different albums as complementary in a live setting, potentially suggesting a smooth transition point in the set list that bridges different eras of Swift's career.
3. The show-stoppers: "Shake It Off" stands out as dissimilar to most other songs in terms of placement. This likely reflects its perceived role as a high-energy, statement piece that occupies a unique position in the set list, perhaps as an opener, closer, or peak moment.
4. Set list evolution: There's a noticeable pattern of higher similarity between songs from the same or adjacent eras, suggesting fans envision distinct segments for different periods of Swift's career within the concert. This could indicate a preference for a chronological journey through her discography or strategic placement of different styles throughout the show.
5. Thematic groupings: Some songs from different albums showed higher similarity, such as "Is It Over Now? (Taylor's Version)" and "You're On Your Own, Kid". This suggests fans see them working well together in the set list based on thematic or emotional connections rather than just album cohesion.
What does it all mean?! 💃🏼📊
This card sort data paints a picture of an artist who continually evolves while maintaining certain core elements that define her work. Swift's ability to create cohesive album experiences, make bold stylistic shifts, and maintain thematic threads throughout her career is reflected in how fans perceive and categorize her songs. Moreover, the diversity of opinions on song categorization - with 59 different songs suggested as potential openers - speaks to the depth and breadth of Swift's discography. It also highlights the personal nature of music appreciation; what one fan sees as the perfect opener, another might categorize as a "Nah".
In the end, this analysis gives us a fascinating glimpse into the complex web of associations in Swift's discography. It shows us not just how Swift has evolved as an artist, but how her fans have evolved with her, creating deep and sometimes unexpected connections between songs across her entire career. Whether you're a die-hard Swiftie or a casual listener, or a weirdo who just loves a good card sort, one thing is clear: Taylor Swift's music is rich, complex, and deeply meaningful to her fans. And with each new album, she continues to surprise, delight, and challenge our expectations.
Conclusion: shaking up our understanding 🥤🤔
This deep dive into the Swiftie psyche through a card sort reveals the complexity of Taylor Swift's discography and fans' relationship with it. From strategic song placement in a dream setlist to unexpected cross-era connections, we've uncovered layers of meaning that showcase Swift's artistry and her fans' engagement. The exercise demonstrates how a song can be a potential opener, mid-show energy boost, poignant closer, or a skip-worthy track, highlighting Swift's ability to create diverse, emotionally resonant music that serves various roles in the listening experience.
The analysis underscores Swift's evolving career, with distinct album clusters alongside surprising connections, painting a picture of an artist who reinvents herself while maintaining a core essence. It also demonstrates how fan-driven analyses like card sorting can be insightful and engaging, offering a unique window into music fandom and reminding us that in Swift's discography, there's always more to discover. This exercise proves valuable whether you're a die-hard Swiftie, casual listener, or someone who loves to analyze pop culture phenomena.
