Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Selected:ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)User Interviews Assumption Mapping Fake Door Test

Criterion	Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)	UX Research User Interviews	Product Discovery Assumption Mapping	Product Discovery Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent	ARID examines how well developers can work with a technical design. It focuses on a part of the system that can still be revised, between the architecture overview and the detailed specification.	When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible.	When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first.	When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.
Complexitydifferent	Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
Timedifferent	2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional	30–60 min per interview	45-60 min	1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent	Designers, developers as users, and facilitation	1 participant per interview	2-8	Nutzertraffic
Formatdifferent	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Workshop + async	Async
Outputdifferent	Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions	Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary	Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking	Click Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap	ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks	QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery	AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation	ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery

Add more methods