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 Tree Testing |  Architecture Request for Comments |  Decision Making Argument Mapping |  UX Research Card Sorting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | An RFC clarifies architecture context, options, and consequences. It structures technical context, alternatives, tradeoffs, open questions, and review feedback, and captures the result as an RFC document, reviewer comments, and a decision rationale. | When statements, evidence, and counterarguments get mixed up, a debate quickly loses its structure. Argument Mapping breaks a thesis down into its reasoning and makes visible what it really rests on. | 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 | Medium | Medium | Medium | Low |
Timedifferent | 1-2 Tage | 1-3 Wochen vom Draft bis zur Entscheidung | 1-3 h | 20-45 min |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | 3-20 Reviewer | 1-8 | Based on research question |
Formatdifferent | Async | Async | Workshop + async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Findability Metrics, Path Analysis, Revised IA | RFC document, Reviewer comments, Decision rationale, Follow-up ADR or tickets | Argument Map, Evidence Gaps, Decision Rationale | Content groups, Label set, IA hypotheses |
Tagsno overlap | Information architectureNavigationFindability | ArchitectureDecisionAsyncGovernance | SensemakingDecisionRationale | Information architectureNavigationStructure |