View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
Selected:Usability TestingATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method)Affinity DiagrammingLASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
| Criterion |  UX Research Usability Testing |  Architecture ATAM (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method) |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | 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. | ATAM helps teams weigh architecture decisions when quality goals compete. The team considers business goals, stakeholder expectations, and technical decisions together. The evaluation shows which risks need further investigation. | 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. | LASR helps development teams identify where their software falls short of important quality goals and which improvements to consider. A small group with existing system knowledge can make an initial assessment and investigate open questions in more detail. |
Complexitydifferent | Medium | High | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 1-2 h je Session | Several meetings plus preparation and analysis; total effort depends on scope | 45–90 min | 3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional |
Participantsdifferent | Based on research question | Evaluation team, architects, and relevant stakeholders | 3-10 | 1 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 people |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Usability Issues, Severity List, Recommendations | Prioritized quality scenarios in a utility tree, Architecture risks with reasoning and assumptions, Sensitivity and trade-off points, Findings report with open investigations | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Lean Mission Statement describing the software’s purpose, Prioritized quality goals and evaluation criteria, Risks and estimated gaps against quality goals, More closely examined findings and open checks |
Tagsno overlap | ValidationUXPrototype | ArchitectureQualityRiskTradeoffsStakeholders | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean |