RE: Card sorting!!!

Hi,

I must admit, I can't tell what the conflict is between the two techniques.

Having looked into the links that William posted about Karen Holtzblatt's
version of Affinity Diagramming, it seems to me that there's a key
difference in the different groups of people the two techniques are most
usefully applied to.

It seems that Affinity Diagramming is used (at least by Karen's team) to
gain understanding, consensus and buy-in from different parties within an
organisation. Card Sorting (at least the way I've used it so far) is focused
on gaining understanding of how users or customers outside the organisation
understand conceptual groupings. Then you can compare the way the customers
think with the way the staff (or expert users) think.

I'm sure each technique could be used with the other group of people. I've
done card sorting with staff before. I tend to include card sorting as part
of user testing sessions, so it's generally done with an individual. It
seems that affinity diagramming would need more of a focus group type
setting.

Having seen this info, I'm really keen to try affinity diagramming with
difficult clients. I hope it can help avoid some of the political problems
that often crop up in larger organisations.

Cheers,

Tom




-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Capell [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: 04 March 2009 15:05
To: User-Centred Design (Discussion)
Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!

Hi,

Ok, but in my original post on this comparison, I did mention something
called "nominal group technique," which has to do with making the "category
collapsing*" activity into a "private thing" (to be adjudicated after the
fact). Anyway, I suspect that my raising the "affinity diagramming" idea may
simply be an irritating comparison to those who feel enamored of "Card
Sorting," so I think I'll drop this thread. Thank you for your reply.

 Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Diarmad McNally [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:01 AM
To: User-Centred Design (Discussion); Peter Capell
Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!


Hi

Generally, card sorting is carried out on individuals while affinity
diagramming is a group activity. This means that AD results are subject to
group dynamics to reach consensus while this is not so for CS as the
responses are individual and it is the analysis which provides the
'consensus' which is reflective of the group.

Diarmad

--- On Wed, 4/3/09, Peter Capell <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Peter Capell <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
> To: "Diarmad McNally" <[email protected]>, "User-Centred Design 
> (Discussion)" <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, 4 March, 2009, 2:49 PM Good Morning,
> 
> Sorry, I failed to comprehend the _difference_ you are alluding to. 
> "Consensus" and "individual response" achieving it = "consensus."
> 
>  Peter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diarmad McNally [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:03 AM
> To: User-Centred Design (Discussion)
> Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
> 
> 
> Morning,
> 
> Another interesting difference between card sorting and affinity 
> diagramming is that the latter attempts to achieve consensus in a 
> group and is therefore subject to group bias (e.g. strong characters 
> leading the group etc.) while the consensus agreed through card 
> sorting is aggregated from individual responses.
> 
> Regards,
> Diarmad McNally
> Interaction Design Studio
> 
> t: (+44) 07808 297289
> e: [email protected]
> w: www.ixdStudio.com
> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ixdStudio
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 3/3/09, William Hudson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > From: William Hudson
> <[email protected]>
> > Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
> > To: "User-Centred Design (Discussion)"
> <[email protected]>
> > Date: Tuesday, 3 March, 2009, 4:10 PM Peter -
> > 
> > While I agree that there are some similarities between
> card sorting
> > and affinity diagramming, I don't think that one
> lead to the other. 
> > Affinity diagramming comes from the KJ Method which
> was only invented
> > in the 1960s. Philosophers, psychologists and
> information scientists
> > (in various guises) have been categorising concepts
> for many hundreds
> > of years before that. In fact, even the methods of
> cluster analysis
> > and tree diagrams commonly used to process card sorts
> predate the KJ
> > Method (although they came after Aristotle<g>).
> > 
> > Also, there are some very important differences
> between card sorting
> > and affinity diagramming. As it happens, I cover these
> in my web
> > design course at CHI 2009 in Boston - see
> >
> http://chi2009.org/Attending/AdvanceProgram/courseC119.htm
> > 
> > Basically, card sorting is trying to investigate
> categories and
> > terminology while affinity diagramming is much more
> about concepts,
> > descriptions and the voice of the customer (at least
> as practised by
> > Karen Holtzblatt and her colleagues). Anyone
> interested in affinity
> > diagramming should have a look at Jared Spools web
> page on the subject
> > (http://www.uie.com/articles/kj_technique/) and either
> a Karen
> > Holtzblatt's books on contextual design.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > William Hudson
> > Syntagm Ltd
> > Design for Usability
> > UK 01235-522859
> > World +44-1235-522859
> > US Toll Free 1-866-SYNTAGM
> > mailto:[email protected]
> > http://www.syntagm.co.uk
> > skype:williamhudsonskype
> > 
> > Syntagm is a limited company registered in England and
> Wales.
> > Registered number: 1895345. Registered office: 10
> Oxford Road,
> > Abingdon OX14 2DS.
> > 
> > Advances in Card Sorting - One Day Workshop
> >  - London, 21 April 2009
> > http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/csadvances.shtml
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter Capell [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: 03 March 2009 15:19
> > > To: UCD
> > > Subject: RE: Card sorting!!!
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Card sorting is apparently a slight modification
> to
> > "affinity
> > > diagramming" about which there is much
> (older)
> > literature in the area
> > > of "meeting management." I think it is
> a
> > very powerful technique (when
> > > the group/team/users are cooperative). Often it
> is
> > coupled with first a
> > > session of brainstorming, which when conducted by
> the
> > rules is a very
> > > helpful adjunct. There are even permutations of
> > brainstorming/card
> > > sorting (affinity diagramming) called
> "nominal
> > group technique" which
> > > allows for differences in personality type.
> > > 
> > >  Peter
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to ucd as:
> > [email protected].
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> >
> leave-44499-378.8bf1211fd4b7b94528899de0a43b9fb3@listman.syntagm.co.uk
> 
> 
>       
> 
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-44522-310.06eb61b839a0cefee4967c67ccb099dc@listman.syntagm.co.uk


      

---
You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-44543-861.f9a40a4780f5e1306c46f1c8daecee3b@listman.syntagm.co.uk


---
You are currently subscribed to ucd as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-44548-427.18997733ec258a9fcaf239cc55d53363@listman.syntagm.co.uk