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) |  UX Research Card Sorting |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | 4-8 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | Based on research question |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Empathy Map, Assumptions List, Research Gaps | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses |
Tagsno overlap | SynthesisQualitativeWorkshop | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | Information architectureNavigationStructure |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
