Our latest feature session replay has landed 🥳

"Hi Optimal Work,I was wondering if there are some best practices you stick to when creating or sending out different UX research studies (i.e. Card sorts, Prototyye Test studies, etc)? Thank you! Mary"

‍

Indeed I do! Over the years I’ve learned a lot about creating remote research studies and engaging participants. That experience has taught me a lot about what works, what doesn’t and what leaves me refreshing my results screen eagerly anticipating participant responses and getting absolute zip. Here are my top tips for remote research study creation and launch success!

‍

‍

Creating remote research studies

‍

‍

Use screener questions and post-study questions wisely

‍

Screener questions are really useful for eliminating participants who may not fit the criteria you’re looking for but you can’t exactly stop them from being less than truthful in their responses. Now, I’m not saying all participants lie on the screener so they can get to the activity (and potentially claim an incentive) but I am saying it’s something you can’t control. To help manage this, I like to use the post-study questions to provide additional context and structure to the research.

‍

Depending on the study, I might ask questions to which the answers might confirm or exclude specific participants from a specific group. For example, if I’m doing research on people who live in a specific town or area, I’ll include a location based question after the study. Any participant who says they live somewhere else is getting excluded via that handy toggle option in the results section. Post-study questions are also great for capturing additional ideas and feedback after participants complete the activity as remote research limits your capacity to get those — you’re not there with them so you can’t just ask. Post-study questions can really help bridge this gap. Use no more than five post-study questions at a time and consider not making them compulsory.

‍

‍

Do a practice run

‍

No matter how careful I am, I always miss something! A typo, a card with a label in the wrong case, forgetting to update a new version of an information architecture after a change was made — stupid mistakes that we all make. By launching a practice version of your study and sharing it with your team or client, you can stop those errors dead in their tracks. It’s also a great way to get feedback from the team on your work before the real deal goes live. If you find an error, all you have to do is duplicate the study, fix the error and then launch. Just keep an eye on the naming conventions used for your studies to prevent the practice version and the final version from getting mixed up!

‍

Sending out remote research studies

‍

‍

Manage expectations about how long the study will be open for

‍

Something that has come back to bite me more than once is failing to clearly explain when the study will close. Understandably, participants can be left feeling pretty annoyed when they mentally commit to complete a study only to find it’s no longer available. There does come a point when you need to shut the study down to accurately report on quantitative data and you’re not going to be able to prevent every instance of this, but providing that information upfront will go a long way.

‍

‍

Provide contact details and be open to questions

‍

You may think you’re setting yourself up to be bombarded with emails, but I’ve found that isn’t necessarily the case. I’ve noticed I get around 1-3 participants contacting me per study. Sometimes they just want to tell me they completed it and potentially provide additional information and sometimes they have a question about the project itself. I’ve also found that sometimes they have something even more interesting to share such as the contact details of someone I may benefit from connecting with — or something else entirely! You never know what surprises they have up their sleeves and it’s important to be open to it. Providing an email address or social media contact details could open up a world of possibilities.

‍

‍

Don’t forget to include the link!

‍

It might seem really obvious, but I can’t tell you how many emails I received (and have been guilty of sending out) that are missing the damn link to the study. It happens! You’re so focused on getting that delivery right and it becomes really easy to miss that final yet crucial piece of information.

‍

To avoid this irritating mishap, I always complete a checklist before hitting send:

‍

• Have I checked my spelling and grammar?
• Have I replaced all the template placeholder content with the correct information?
• Have I mentioned when the study will close?
• Have I included contact details?
• Have I launched my study and received confirmation that it is live?
• Have I included the link to the study in my communications to participants?
• Does the link work? (yep, I’ve broken it before)

‍

‍

‍

General tips for both creating and sending out remote research studies

‍

‍

Know your audience

‍

First and foremost, before you create or disseminate a remote research study, you need to understand who it’s going to and how they best receive this type of content. Posting it out when none of your followers are in your user group may not be the best approach. Do a quick brainstorm about the best way to reach them. For example if your users are internal staff, there might be an internal communications channel such as an all-staff newsletter, intranet or social media site that you can share the link and approach content to.

‍

‍

Keep it brief

‍

And by that I’m talking about both the engagement mechanism and the study itself. I learned this one the hard way. Time is everything and no matter your intentions, no one wants to spend more time than they have to. Even more so in situations where you’re unable to provide incentives (yep, I’ve been there). As a rule, I always stick to no more than 10 questions in a remote research study and for card sorts, I’ll never include more than 60 cards. Anything more than that will see a spike in abandonment rates and of course only serve to annoy and frustrate your participants. You need to ensure that you’re balancing your need to gain insights with their time constraints.

‍

As for the accompanying approach content, short and snappy equals happy! In the case of an email, website, other social media post, newsletter, carrier pigeon etc, keep your approach spiel to no more than a paragraph. Use an audience appropriate tone and stick to the basics such as: a high level sentence on what you’re doing, roughly how long the study will take participants to complete, details of any incentives on offer and of course don’t forget to thank them.

‍

‍

Set clear instructions

‍

The default instructions in Optimal Workshop’s suite of tools are really well designed and I’ve learned to borrow from them for my approach content when sending the link out. There’s no need for wheel reinvention and it usually just needs a slight tweak to suit the specific study. This also helps provide participants with a consistent experience and minimizes confusion allowing them to focus on sharing those valuable insights!

‍

‍

Create a template

‍

When you’re on to something that works — turn it into a template! Every time I create a study or send one out, I save it for future use. It still needs minor tweaks each time, but I use them to iterate my template.What are your top tips for creating and sending out remote user research studies? Comment below!

“Dear Optimal Workshop,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 — 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 organised 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 — 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.

‍

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 — hopefully it is much better now!

‍

‍

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!