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?
Session replay allows you to record participants completing a card sort without the need for plug-ins or integrations. This great new feature captures the participant's interactions and creates a recording for each participant completing the card sort that you can view in your own time. It’s a great way to identify where users may have struggled to categorize information to correlate with the insights you find in your data.
Session replay interacts with a study and nothing else. It does not include audio or face recording in the first release, but we’re working on it for the future.
There is no set-up or plug-in required; you control the use of screen replay in the card sort settings.
For enterprise customers, the account admin will be required to turn this feature on for teams to access.
Session replay is currently only available on card sort, but it’s coming soon to other study types.
To activate session replay, create a card sort or open an existing card sort that has not yet been launched. Click on ‘set up,’ then ‘settings’; here, you will see the option to turn on session replay for your card sort. This feature will be off by default, and you must turn it on for each card study.
How do I view a session replay?
To view a session replay of a card sort, go to Results > Participants > Select a participant > Session replay.
I can't see session replay in the card sort settings 👀
If this is the case, you will need to reach out to your organization's account admin to ask for this to be activated at an organizational level. It’s really easy for session replay to be enabled or disabled by the organization admin just by navigating to Settings > Features > Session Replay, where it can be toggled on/off.
In 2009, Bob Bailey and Cari Wolfson published published findings that changed how we approach first click testing and usability testing. They analyzed 12 scenario-based user tests and found that if someone gets their first click right, they're about twice as likely to complete their task successfully. This finding was so compelling that we built First Click Testing (formerly Chalkmark) specifically to help teams test this. But we'd never actually validated their research using our own data, until now.
Turns out, we're sitting on one of the world's largest databases of tree testing results. So we analyzed millions of task responses to see if the "first click predicts success" hypothesis holds up.
It does. Convincingly.
Users who get their first click correct are nearly three times more likely to complete their task successfully (70% vs 24% success rate).
Here's how we validated the original study, what our data shows, and why first clicks matter more than you might think.
Original first click testing study: 87% task success rate
Bob and Cari analyzed data from twelve usability studies on websites and products with varying amounts and types of content, a range of subject matter complexity, and distinct user interfaces. They found that people were about twice as likely to complete a task successfully if they got their first click right, than if they got it wrong:
If the first click was correct, the chances of getting the entire scenario correct was 87% if the first click was incorrect, the chances of eventually getting the scenario correct was only 46%.
Our Tree Testing data: First clicks predict 70% task success rate
We analyzed millions of tree testing responses in our database. We've found that people who get the first click correct are almost three times as likely to complete a task successfully:
If the first click was correct, the chances of getting the entire scenario correct was 70% if the first click was incorrect, the chances of eventually getting the scenario correct was 24%
To give you another perspective on the same data, here's the inverse:
If the first click was correct, the chances of getting the entire scenario incorrect was 30% if the first click was incorrect, the chances of getting the whole scenario incorrect was 76%
How Tree Testing measures first click success and task completion
Bob and Cari proved the usefulness of the methodology by linking two key metrics in scenario-based usability studies: first clicks and task success. First Click Testing doesn't measure task success — it's up to the researcher to determine as they're setting up the study what constitutes 'success', and then to interpret the results accordingly. Tree Testing(formerly Treejack) does measure task success — and first clicks.
In a tree test, participants are asked to complete a task by clicking though a text-only version of a website hierarchy, and then clicking 'I'd find it here' when they've chosen an answer. Each task in a tree test has a pre-determined correct answer — as was the case in Bob and Cari's usability studies — and every click is recorded, so we can see participant paths in detail.
Thus, every single time a person completes an individual tree testing task, we record both their first click and whether they are successful or not. When we came to test the 'correct first click leads to task success' hypothesis, we could therefore mine data from millions of task.
To illustrate this, have a look at the results for one task. The overall Task result, you see a score for success and directness, and a breakdown of whether each Success, Fail, or Skip was direct (they went straight to an answer), or indirect (they went back up the tree before they selected an answer):
In the pie tree for the same task, you can look in more detail at how many people went the wrong way from a label (each label representing one page of your website):
In the First Click tab, you get a percentage breakdown of which label people clicked first to complete the task:
And in the Paths tab, you can view individual participant paths in detail (including first clicks), and can filter the table by direct and indirect success, fails, and skips (this table is only displaying direct success and direct fail paths):
How to run first click tests: Best practices for usability testing
First click analysis is one of the most predictive metrics in usability testing. Whether you're testing wireframes, landing pages, or information architecture, measuring first click success gives you early insight into whether your design will work.
This analysis reinforces something we already knew: first clicksmatter. It is worth your time to get that first impression right. You have plenty of options for measuring the link between first clicks and task success in your scenario-based usability tests. From simply noting where your participants go during observations, to gathering quantitative first click data via online tools, you'll win either way. And if you want quantitative first click data, Optimal has you covered. First Click Testing works for wireframes and landing pages, while Tree Testing validates your information architecture.
To finish, here are a few invaluable insights from other researchers on getting the most from first click testing:
This analysis was conducted in 2015 using millions of task responses from Optimal’s First Click and Tree Testing tools. While the dataset predates recent UI trends, the underlying behavioral principle, that a correct first click strongly predicts task success, remains consistent with modern usability research.
“Dear Optimal, I want to test the structure of a university website (well certain sections anyway). My gut instinct is that it's pretty 'broken'. Lots of sections feel like they're in the wrong place. I want to test my hypotheses before proposing a new structure. I'm definitely going to do some card sorting, and was planning a mixture of online and offline. My question is about when to bring in tree testing. Should I do this first to test the existing IA? Or is card sorting sufficient? I do intend to tree test my new proposed IA in order to validate it, but is it worth doing it upfront too?" — Matt
Dear Matt,
Ah, the classic chicken or the egg scenario: Which should come first, tree testing or card sorting? It’s a question that many researchers often ask themselves, but I’m here to help clear the air! You should always use both methods when changing up your information architecture (IA) in order to capture the most information.
Tree testing and card sorting, when used together, can give you fantastic insight into the way your users interact with your site. First of all, I’ll run through some of the benefits of each testing method.
What is card sorting and why should I use it?
Card sorting is a great method to gauge the way in which your users organize the content on your site. It helps you figure out which things go together and which things don’t. There are two main types of card sorting: open and closed.
Closed card sorting involves providing participants with pre-defined categories into which they sort their cards. For example, you might be reorganizing the categories for your online clothing store for women. Your cards would have all the names of your products (e.g., “socks”, “skirts” and “singlets”) and you also provide the categories (e.g.,“outerwear”, “tops” and “bottoms”).
Open card sorting involves providing participants with cards and leaving them to organize the content in a way that makes sense to them. It’s the opposite to closed card sorting, in that participants dictate the categories themselves and also label them. This means you’d provide them with the cards only, and no categories.
Card sorting, whether open or closed, is very user focused. It involves a lot of thought, input, and evaluation from each participant, helping you to form the structure of your new IA.
What is tree testing and why should I use it?
Tree testing is a fantastic way to determine how your users are navigating your site and how they’re finding information. Your site is organized into a tree structure, sorted into topics and subtopics, and participants are provided with some tasks that they need to perform. The results will show you how your participants performed those tasks, if they were successful or unsuccessful, and which route they took to complete the tasks. This data is extremely useful for creating a new and improved IA.
Tree testing is an activity that requires participants to seek information, which is quite the contrast to card sorting. Card sorting is an activity that requires participants to sort and organize information. Each activity requires users to behave in different ways, so each method will give its own valuable results.
Comparing tree testing and card sorting: Key differences
Tree testing and card sorting are complementary methods within your UX toolkit, each unlocking unique insights about how users interact with your site structure. The difference is all about direction.
Card sorting is generative. It helps you understand how users naturally group and label your content; revealing mental models, surfacing intuitive categories, and informing your site’s information architecture (IA) from the ground up. Whether using open or closed methods, card sorting gives users the power to organize content in ways that make sense to them.
Tree testing is evaluative. Once you’ve designed or restructured your IA, tree testing puts it to the test. Participants are asked to complete find-it tasks using only your site structure – no visuals, no design – just your content hierarchy. This highlights whether users can successfully locate information and how efficiently they navigate your content tree.
In short:
Card sorting = "How would you organize this?"
Tree testing = "Can you find this?"
Using both methods together gives you clarity and confidence. One builds the structure. The other proves it works.
Which method should you choose?
The right method depends on where you are in your IA journey. If you're beginning from scratch or rethinking your structure, starting with card sorting is ideal. It will give you deep insight into how users group and label content.
If you already have an existing IA and want to validate its effectiveness, tree testing is typically the better fit. Tree testing shows you where users get lost and what’s working well. Think of card sorting as how users think your site should work, and tree testing as how they experience it in action.
Should you run a card or tree test first?
In this scenario, I’d recommend running a tree test first in order to find out how your existing IA currently performs. You said your gut instinct is telling you that your existing IA is pretty “broken”, but it’s good to have the data that proves this and shows you where your users get lost.
An initial tree test will give you a benchmark to work with – after all, how will you know your shiny, new IA is performing better if you don’t have any stats to compare it with? Your results from your first tree test will also show you which parts of your current IA are the biggest pain points and from there you can work on fixing them. Make sure you keep these tasks on hand – you’ll need them later!
Once your initial tree test is done, you can start your card sort, based on the results from your tree test. Here, I recommend conducting an open card sort so you can understand how your users organize the content in a way that makes sense to them. This will also show you the language your participants use to name categories, which will help you when you’re creating your new IA.
Finally, once your card sort is done you can conduct another tree test on your new, proposed IA. By using the same (or very similar) tasks from your initial tree test, you will be able to see that any changes in the results can be directly attributed to your new and improved IA.
Once your test has concluded, you can use this data to compare the performance from the tree test for your original information architecture.
Why using both methods together is most effective
Card sorting and tree testing aren’t rivals, view them as allies. Used together, they give you end-to-end clarity. Card sorting informs your IA design based on user mental models. Tree testing evaluates that structure, confirming whether users can find what they need. This combination creates a feedback loop that removes guesswork and builds confidence. You'll move from assumptions to validation, and from confusion to clarity – all backed by real user behavior.
