View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Card SortingARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)Assumption SurfacingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)
| Criterion |  UX Research Card Sorting |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Decision Making Assumption Surfacing |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When content only makes sense internally and users can't find the structure again, card sorting exposes their mental order. Terms, groups, and naming are then aligned with the target group's expectations. | 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. | Plans often contain assumptions that were never openly stated and remain dangerous precisely because of that. Assumption Surfacing makes these silent premises visible and prioritizes which of them carry the initiative or could sink it. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | High |
Timedifferent | 20-45 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 45-90 min | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 2-8 | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders |
Formatsame | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Assumption List, Critical Assumptions, Learning Plan | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationStructure | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | AssumptionsRiskDecisionDiscovery | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders |