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 Personas |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |  Architecture Quality Attribute Workshop |  UX Research Surveys |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When target groups stay too vague and teams talk about the same people differently, personas create a shared, solid picture of usage. Condensed profiles make needs, contexts, and differences tangible enough for decisions. | 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. | A Quality Attribute Workshop translates quality requirements into concrete scenarios and architecture impulses. The method brings product, engineering, and operations to the same view of desired properties. | When a topic needs to be validated broadly and many people can answer the same question, surveys gather structured feedback in a scalable form. Answers become comparable and segmentable instead of remaining merely anecdotal. |
Complexitysame | Medium | Medium | Medium | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-3 Tage | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional | 2-4 h | 3-14 Tage |
Participantsdifferent | Internes Team | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation | 5-15 | 50+ |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Async |
Outputdifferent | Persona Profiles, Needs Summary, Scenario Notes | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions | Quality Scenarios, Priority List, Architecture Concerns | Survey Results, Charts, Segment Insights |
Tagsno overlap | ResearchCustomerSynthesis | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks | RequirementsArchitectureWorkshop | QuantitativeResearchValidation |