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 shared options, independently placed voting dots, and a highlighted shortlist.
Facilitation
Dot Voting
Paper illustration of a participant using a prototype while an observer takes notes beside a highlighted usability issue.
UX Research
Usability Testing
Independent contributions form an ordered group priority list.
Facilitation
Nominal Group Technique
Paper illustration for 1-2-4-All.
Facilitation
1-2-4-All
Purposedifferent
When a workshop has produced too many options and the group needs to condense quickly, dot voting makes preferences visible in a short time. It bundles individual votes into a solid signal for the next selection.When a product is built but people get stuck on tasks, usability testing shows the friction at concrete points. Observed use instead of self-report makes visible where orientation, understanding, or interaction breaks down.When loud voices could dominate a round, Nominal Group Technique protects individual thinking time from group effects. It collects ideas separately first and only then enables shared weighting.When many people in a group too rarely get to speak, 1-2-4-All distributes thinking time more fairly. The format builds participation step by step and makes quiet or still-unformed thoughts usable faster.
Complexitydifferent
LowMediumMediumLow
Timedifferent
5-15 min1-2 h je Session60-120 min10-20 min
Participantsdifferent
3-20Based on research question5-124-100+
Formatdifferent
WorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop
Outputdifferent
Ranked list, Consensus signal, ShortlistUsability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsRanked Ideas, Clarified Options, Group PriorityIdea List, Shared Insights, Emergent Themes
Tagsno overlap
FacilitationVotingConsensusPrioritization
ValidationUXPrototype
FacilitationPrioritizationVotingInclusion
FacilitationInclusionIdeation
Add more methods