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 User Interviews |  UX Research Affinity Diagramming |  Architecture ARID (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs) |
|---|---|---|---|
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. | 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. | 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 | Low | Low | Medium |
Timedifferent | 30–60 min per interview | 45–90 min | 2–4 h review as a planning range; preparation and evaluation additional |
Participantsdifferent | 1 participant per interview | 3-10 | Designers, developers as users, and facilitation |
Formatdifferent | Workshop + async | Workshop | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Interview Notes, Themes, Insight Summary | Theme clusters, Insight statements, Opportunity areas | Prioritized development tasks, Jointly produced code or pseudocode, Observed difficulties and open design questions, Proposed design revisions |
Tagsno overlap | QualitativeResearchCustomerDiscovery | SynthesisQualitativeRoot cause | ArchitectureEngineeringFeedbackValidationTasks |
Often compared together
Methods with strong topical overlap with the current selection, not yet in the comparison.
