methodatlas
Compare

View methods side by side.

Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.

Criterion
Paper illustration of a participant using a prototype while an observer takes notes beside a highlighted usability issue.
UX Research
Usability Testing
Design Thinking as a learning loop: an observation notebook, a focused problem statement, different idea sketches, a cardboard prototype and user-test notes. Feedback leads to new understanding.
Innovation
Design Thinking
Four paper stations connect system purpose, quality goals, risk cards and focused investigation with a target and gap profile.
Architecture
LASR (Lightweight Approach for Software Reviews)
Design sheets and interface cards connect to jointly written pseudocode with highlighted unresolved questions.
Architecture
ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs)
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.For complex user problems with an uncertain cause, the method connects observation, interpretation, and experiment into a learning cycle. It keeps the focus on real needs and avoids premature solution language. This produces robust decisions for product and service.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.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.
Complexitydifferent
MediumHighMediumMedium
Timedifferent
1-2 h je Session1 Tag bis mehrere Wochen3–4 h for initial assessment; preparation and deeper analysis additional2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional
Participantsdifferent
Based on research question4-101 or a small team; particularly suitable for 3–4 peopleDesigners, developers as users, and facilitation
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshopWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + async
Outputdifferent
Usability Issues, Severity List, RecommendationsProblem Statement, Prototype, Test LearningsLean 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 checksPrioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions
Tagsno overlap
ValidationUXPrototype
InnovationPrototypeResearch
ArchitectureQualityRiskAssessmentLean
ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks
Add more methods