View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  UX Research Empathy Mapping |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture arc42 |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When a lot is assumed about a target group but little is seen jointly, empathy mapping makes knowledge and gaps directly comparable. The picture also shows which assumptions hold up and where evidence is missing. | 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. | arc42 structures architecture knowledge so teams can document system, decisions, and risks consistently. The template builds a living understanding of the architecture instead of scattered notes. | When research notes, feedback, or observations sit unconnected side by side, affinity diagramming sorts the raw material into solid themes. Many individual points turn into patterns that make decisions and opportunities clearer. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 1-2 Tage | 45–90 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 1-4 | 3-10 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Architecture Document, Context View, Runtime View, Deployment View | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | ArchitectureDocumentationCommunication | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause |