How to interpret your card sort results Part 1: open and hybrid card sorts

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.

Usability guru Jared Spool has written extensively about the 'scent of information'. This term describes how users are always 'on the hunt' through a site, click by click, to find the content they’re looking for. Tree testing helps you deliver a strong scent by improving organisation (how you group your headings and subheadings) and labelling (what you call each of them).

‍

Anyone who’s seen a spy film knows there are always false scents and red herrings to lead the hero astray. And anyone who’s run a few tree tests has probably seen the same thing — headings and labels that lure participants to the wrong answer. We call these 'evil attractors'.In Part 1 of this article, we’ll look at what evil attractors are, how to spot them at the answer end of your tree, and how to fix them. In Part 2, we’ll look at how to spot them in the higher levels of your tree.

‍

The false scent — what it looks like in practice

‍

One of my favourite examples of an evil attractor comes from a tree test we ran for consumer.org.nz, a New Zealand consumer-review website (similar to Consumer Reports in the USA). Their site listed a wide range of consumer products in a tree several levels deep, and they wanted to try out a few ideas to make things easier to find as the site grew bigger.We ran the tests and got some useful answers, but we also noticed there was one particular subheading (Home > Appliances > Personal) that got clicks from participants looking for very different things — mobile phones, vacuum cleaners, home-theatre systems, and so on:

‍

‍

‍

The website intended the Personal appliance category to be for products like electric shavers and curling irons. But apparently, Personal meant many things to our participants: they also went there for 'personal' items like mobile phones and cordless drills that actually lived somewhere else.This is the false scent — the heading that attracts clicks when it shouldn’t, leading participants astray. Hence this definition: an evil attractor is a heading that draws unwanted traffic across several unrelated tasks.

‍

Evil attractors lead your users astray

‍

Attracting clicks isn’t a bad thing in itself. After all, that’s what a good heading does — it attracts clicks for the content it contains (and discourages clicks for everything else). Evil attractors, on the other hand, attract clicks for things they shouldn’t. These attractors lure users down the wrong path, and when users find themselves in the wrong place they'll either back up and try elsewhere (if they’re patient) or give up (if they’re not). Because these attractor topics are magnets for the user’s attention, they make it less likely that your user will get to the place you intended. The other evil part of these attractors is the way they hide in the shadows. Most of the time, they don’t get the lion’s share of traffic for a given task. Instead, they’ll poach 5–10% of the responses, luring away a fraction of users who might otherwise have found the right answer.

‍

Find evil attractors easily in your data

‍

The easiest attractors to spot are those at the answer end of your tree (where participants ended up for each task). If we can look across tasks for similar wrong answers, then we can see which of these might be evil attractors.In your Treejack results, the Destinations tab lets you do just that. Here’s more of the consumer.org.nz example:

‍

‍

Normally, when you look at this view, you’re looking down a column for big hits and misses for a specific task. To look for evil attractors, however, you’re looking for patterns across rows. In other words, you’re looking horizontally, not vertically. If we do that here, we immediately notice the row for Personal (highlighted yellow). See all those hits along the row? Those hits indicate an attractor — steady traffic across many tasks that seem to have little in common. But remember, traffic alone is not enough. We’re looking for unwanted traffic across unrelated tasks. Do we see that here? Well, it looks like the tasks (about cameras, drills, laptops, vacuums, and so on) are not that closely related. We wouldn’t expect users to go to the same topic for each of these. And the answer they chose, Personal, certainly doesn’t seem to be the destination we intended. While we could rationalise why they chose this answer, it is definitely unwanted from an IA perspective. So yes, in this case, we seem to have caught an evil attractor red-handed. Here’s a heading that’s getting steady traffic where it shouldn’t.

‍

Evil attractors are usually the result of ambiguity

‍

It’s usually quite simple to figure out why an item in your tree is an evil attractor. In almost all cases, it’s because the item is vague or ambiguous — a word or phrase that could mean different things to different people. Look at our example above. In the context of a consumer-review site, Personal is too general to be a good heading. It could mean products you wear, or carry, or use in the bathroom, or a number of things. So, when those participants come along clutching a task, and they see Personal, a few of them think 'That looks like it might be what I’m looking for', and they go that way.Individually, those choices may be defensible, but as an information architect, are you really going to group mobile phones with vacuum cleaners? The 'personal' link between them is tenuous at best.

‍

Destroy evil attractors by being specific

‍

Just as it’s easy to see why most attractors attract, it’s usually easy to fix them. Evil attractors trade in vagueness and ambiguity, so the obvious remedy is to make those headings more concrete and specific. In the consumer-site example, we looked at the actual content under the Personal heading. It turned out to be items like shavers, curling irons, and hair dryers. A quick discussion yielded Personal care as a promising replacement — one that should deter people looking for mobile phones and jewellery and the like.In the second round of tree testing, among the other changes we made to the tree, we replaced Personal with Personal Care. A few days later, the results confirmed our thinking. Our former evil attractor was no longer luring participants away from the correct answers:

‍

Testing once is good, testing twice is magic

‍

This brings up a final point about tree testing (and about any kind of user testing, really): you need to iterate your testing —  once is not enough.The first round of testing shows you where your tree is doing well (yay!) and where it needs more work so you can make some thoughtful revisions. Be careful though. Even if the problems you found seem to have obvious solutions, you still need to make sure your revisions actually work for users, and don’t cause further problems. The good news is, it’s dead easy to run a second test, because it’s just a small revision of the first. You already have the tasks and all the other bits worked out, so it’s just a matter of making a copy in Treejack, pasting in your revised tree, and hooking up the correct answers. In an hour or two, you’re ready to pilot it again (to err is human, remember) and send it off to a fresh batch of participants.

‍

Two possible outcomes await.

• Your fixes are spot-on, the participants find the correct answers more frequently and easily, and your overall score climbs. You could have skipped this second test, but confirming that your changes worked is both good practice and a good feeling. It’s also something concrete to show your boss.
• Some of your fixes didn’t work, or (given the tangled nature of IA work) they worked for the problems you saw in Round 1, but now they’ve caused more problems of their own. Bad news, for sure. But better that you uncover them now in the design phase (when it takes a few days to revise and re-test) instead of further down the track when the IA has been signed off and changes become painful.

‍

Stay tuned for more on evil attractors

‍

In Part 1, we’ve covered what evil attractors are and how to spot them at the answer end of your tree: that is, evil attractors that participants chose as their destination when performing tasks. Hopefully, a future version of Treejack will be able to highlight these attractors to make your analysis that much easier.

‍

In Part 2, we’ll look at how to spot evil attractors in the intermediate levels of your tree, where they lure participants into a section of the site that you didn’t intend. These are harder to spot, but we’ll see if we can ferret them out.Let us know if you've caught any evil attractors red-handed in your projects.

"Dear Optimal Worshop

I have two huge content structures I would like to A/B test. Do you think Treejack would be appropriate?"

— Mike

‍

Hi Mike (and excellent question)!

‍

Firstly, yes, Treejack is great for testing more than one content structure. It’s easy to run two separate Treejack studies — even more than two. It’ll help you decide which structure you and your team should run with, and it won’t take you long to set them up.

‍

When you’re creating the two tree tests with your two different content structures, include the same tasks in both tests. Using the same tasks will give an accurate measure of which structure performs best. I’ve done it before and I found that the visual presentation of the results — especially the detailed path analysis pietrees — made it really easy to compare Test A with Test B.

‍

Plus (and this is a big plus), if you need to convince stakeholders or teammates of which structure is the most effective, you can’t go past quantitative data, especially when its presented clearly — it’s hard to argue with hard evidence!

‍

Here’s two example of the kinds of results visualizations you could compare in your A/B test: the pietree, which shows correct and incorrect paths, and where people ended up:

‍

‍

‍

And the overall Task result, which breaks down success and directness scores, and has plenty of information worth comparing between two tests:

‍

‍

Keep in mind that running an A/B tree test will affect how you recruit participants — it may not be the best idea to have the same participants complete both tests in one go. But it’s an easy fix — you could either recruit two different groups from the same demographic, or test one group and have a gap (of at least a day) between the two tests.

‍

I’ve one more quick question: why are your two content structures ‘huge’?

‍

I understand that sometimes these things are unavoidable — you potentially work for a government organization, or a university, and you have to include all of the things. But if not, and if you haven’t already, you could run an open card sort to come up with another structure to test (think of it as an A/B/C test!), and to confirm that the categories you’re proposing work for people.

‍

You could even run a closed card sort to establish which content is more important to people than others (your categories could go from ‘Very important’ to ‘Unimportant’, or ‘Use everyday’ to ‘Never use’, for example). You might be able to make your content structure a bit smaller, and still keep its usefulness. Just a thought... and of course, you could try to get this information from your analytics (if available) but just be cautious of this because of course analytics can only tell you what people did and not what they wanted to do.

‍

All the best Mike!