How to get started with tree testing 🌱

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.

‍

Use of card descriptions

‍

‍Create pie charts

‍

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.

‍

Participant recognition of descriptions

‍

‍Create bar charts

‍

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%.

‍

Untitled chartCreate bar charts

‍

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?

‍

Let us know by leaving a comment!

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 clicks matter. 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:

‍

• Jeff Sauro details a useful approach to running a first click test, and shares the findings from a test he ran on 13 people.
• An article on Neoinsight describes three common usability problems that first click testing can solve.
• Gianna LaPin describes a first click test she ran on Netflix, VUDU, and Hulu Plus.

‍

‍

About this study

‍

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.

When it comes to designing and testing in the world of information architecture, it’s hard to beat card sorting. As a usability testing method, card sorting is easy to set up, simple to recruit for and can supply you with a range of useful insights. But there’s a long-standing debate in the world of card sorting, and that’s whether it’s better to run card sorts in person (moderated) or remotely over the internet (unmoderated).

‍

This article should give you some insight into the world of online card sorting. We've included an analysis of the benefits (and the downsides) as well as why people use this approach. Let's take a look!

‍

How an online card sort works

‍

Running a card sort remotely has quickly become a popular option just because of how time-intensive in-person card sorting is. Instead of needing to bring your participants in for dedicated card sorting sessions, you can simply set up your card sort using an online tool (like our very own OptimalSort) and then wait for the results to roll in.

‍

So what’s involved in a typical online card sort? At a very high level, here’s what’s required. We’re going to assume you’re already set up with an online card sorting tool at this point.

‍

1. Define the cards: Depending on what you’re testing, add the items (cards) to your study. If you were testing the navigation menu of a hotel website, your cards might be things like “Home”, “Book a room”, “Our facilities” and “Contact us”.
2. Work out whether to run a closed or open sort: Determine whether you’ll set the groups for participants to sort cards into (closed) or leave it up to them (open). You may also opt for a mix, where you create some categories but leave the option open for participants to create their own.
3. Recruit your participants: Whether using a participant recruitment service or by recruiting through your own channels, send out invites to your online card sort.
4. Wait for the data: Once you’ve sent out your invites, all that’s left to do is wait for the data to come in and then analyze the results.

‍

That’s online card sorting in a nutshell – not entirely different from running a card sort in person. If you’re interested in learning about how to interpret your card sorting results, we’ve put together this article on open and hybrid card sorts and this one on closed card sorts.

‍

Why is online card sorting so popular?

‍

Online card sorting has a few distinct advantages over in-person card sorting that help to make it a popular option among information architects and user researchers. There are downsides too (as there are with any remote usability testing option), but we’ll get to those in a moment.

‍

Where remote (unmoderated) card sorting excels:

‍

• Time savings: Online card sorting is essentially ‘set and forget’, meaning you can set up the study, send out invites to your participants and then sit back and wait for the results to come in. In-person card sorting requires you to moderate each session and collate the data at the end.
• Easier for participants: It’s not often that researchers are on the other side of the table, but it’s important to consider the participant’s viewpoint. It’s much easier for someone to spend 15 minutes completing your online card sort in their own time instead of trekking across town to your office for an exercise that could take well over an hour.
• Cheaper: In a similar vein, online card sorting is much cheaper than in-person testing. While it’s true that you may still need to recruit participants, you won’t need to reimburse people for travel expenses.
• Analytics: Last but certainly not least, online card sorting tools (like OptimalSort) can take much of the analytical burden off you by transforming your data into actionable insights. Other tools will differ, but OptimalSort can generate a similarity matrix, dendrograms and a participant-centric analysis using your study data.

‍

Where in-person (moderated) card sorting excels:

‍

• Qualitative insights: For all intents and purposes, online card sorting is the most effective way to run a card sort. It’s cheaper, faster and easier for you. But, there’s one area where in-person card sorting excels, and that’s qualitative feedback. When you’re sitting directly across the table from your participant you’re far more likely to learn about the why as well as the what. You can ask participants directly why they grouped certain cards together.

‍

Online card sorting: Participant numbers

‍

So that’s online card sorting in a nutshell, as well as some of the reasons why you should actually use this method. But what about participant numbers? Well, there’s no one right answer, but the general rule is that you need more people than you’d typically bring in for a usability test.

‍

This all comes down to the fact that card sorting is what’s known as a generative method, whereas usability testing is an evaluation method. Here’s a little breakdown of what we mean by these terms:

‍

Generative method: There’s no design, and you need to get a sense of how people think about the problem you’re trying to solve. For example, how people would arrange the items that need to go into your website’s navigation. As Nielsen Norman Group explains: “There is great variability in different people's mental models and in the vocabulary they use to describe the same concepts. We must collect data from a fair number of users before we can achieve a stable picture of the users' preferred structure and determine how to accommodate differences among users”.

‍

Evaluation method: There’s already a design, and you basically need to work out whether it’s a good fit for your users. Any major problems are likely to crop up even after testing 5 or so users. For example, you have a wireframe of your website and need to identify any major usability issues.

‍

Basically, because you’ll typically be using card sorting to generate a new design or structure from nothing, you need to sample a larger number of people. If you were testing an existing website structure, you could get by with a smaller group.

‍

Where to from here?

‍

Following on from our discussion of generative versus evaluation methods, you’ve really got a choice of 2 paths from here if you’re in the midst of a project. For those developing new structures, the best course of action is likely to be a card sort. However, if you’ve got an existing structure that you need to test in order to usability problems and possible areas of improvement, you’re likely best to run a tree test. We’ve got some useful information on getting started with a tree test right here on the blog.