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 two people facing each other, speech bubbles and an open interview notebook.
UX Research
User Interviews
Paper illustration for Accountability Ladder
Operations
Accountability Ladder
Paper illustration for Problem Interview
Product Discovery
Problem Interview
Paper illustration for Fake Door Test
Product Discovery
Fake Door Test
Purposedifferent
When teams derive needs only from assumptions and real motives are missing, user interviews give direct access to behavior and meaning. Conversations from the target group's everyday life make patterns, tensions, and open questions solidly visible.With defensive reactions to problems, the method shifts the view from justification to ownership. It makes visible which reaction stage a person or team is currently stuck on.When the picture of the problem still needs to become solid, it asks about real situations and consequences. It separates genuine suffering from mere interest in a solution.When demand is still unclear, it measures interest in a feature before it is built. It separates real behavior from polite agreement and deliberately keeps build effort small.
Complexitydifferent
LowLowMediumMedium
Timedifferent
30–60 min per interview20-45 min30-60 min je Interview1-5 Tage
Participantsdifferent
1 participant per interview1-85-12 InterviewsNutzertraffic
Formatdifferent
Workshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncWorkshop + asyncAsync
Outputdifferent
Interview Notes, Themes, Insight SummaryOwnership Reflection, Action Commitment, Coaching NotesProblem Evidence, Risk Notes, Customer SegmentsClick Data, Interest Signal, Learning Decision
Tagsno overlap
QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery
ResponsibilityLeadershipTeam
DiscoveryInterviewsValidation
ValidationExperimentsDemandDiscovery
Add more methods