methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

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

Criterion
Paper illustration of DIBB with its method-specific working model.
Product Strategy
DIBB
Paper illustration of a branching category tree with a highlighted search path and possible dead ends.
UX Research
Tree Testing
Paper illustration showing three sorted card stacks and an open question about a possible group.
UX Research
Card Sorting
Paper illustration of the Force Field Analysis working structure.
Decision Making
Force Field Analysis
Purposedifferent
DIBB helps clarify target groups, value, goals, and priorities by making the logic behind a decision explicit. It captures results as a DIBB document, belief list, bet list, and learning report.When a navigation exists but search paths still fail, tree testing checks findability without visual distraction. The method shows whether labels, levels, and paths really lead to the intended destination.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.In change initiatives, supporting and restraining forces sit at the table at the same time. Force Field Analysis makes these tensions explicit and shows where change can be pushed forward by strengthening or relieving.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumLowLow
Timedifferent
1-2 h1-2 Tage20-45 min45-90 min
Participantsdifferent
2-8Based on research questionBased on research question3-12
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncAsyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop
Outputdifferent
DIBB document, Belief list, Bet list, Learning reportFindability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IAContent groups, Label set, IA hypothesesForce Field Map, Change Levers, Risk Notes
Tagsno overlap
StrategyDecisionAssumptionsHypothesis
Information architectureNavigationFindability
Information architectureNavigationStructure
ChangeDecisionStrategy
Add more methods