home |
site map |
This month I looked at a card sorting tool, a diagramming
and wireframing tool, and a rapid prototyping tool.
Here are my thoughts:
OptimalSort |
| |
|
| ||
evaluation |
|
1. How useable is the tool?
OptimalSort is a very easy tool to learn and use. As noted, this writer had compiled and
sent out a survey of 28 cards to ten participants in under an hour. Headings and instructions are clear and
concise, and navigation through the application is straightforward. Compared
with another online card sorting application, Websort.net (UXPunk Ltd, n.d.),
OptimalSort uses more specific terms, provides more explanations for functions,
and has a generally more streamlined interface ‘feel’. It also presents more options for
sharing results (see below).
2. How well does the tool help the user
reach the desired goal(s), i.e. understanding user perspectives on labelling and
navigation?
Results from each OptimalSort card sort are automatically given
three treatments in the case of the free trial version, that is, a dendogram
analysis, a similarity matrix, and a participant-centric analysis (or PCA). The option to standardise category
responses which are very similar to one another is also possible, with a grid
provided to show the distribution of cards within these standardised categories
also featured. There are two versions of the dendogram, and for free trial
version users, the ‘Best Merge Method’ is the better suited to a small
participant group analysis. For full version users, the ‘Actual Agreement
Method’ produces more accurate results. It must be noted, however, as Sauro
argues, that interpreting cluster analysis dendograms is ‘notoriously
subjective’ and that these are best used in conjunction with other kinds of
analyses (2012, para. 8). The similarity matrix works on agreement of pair
combinations of cards, that is, how often participants paired two cards
together. It provides a useful
visual for seeing at a glance the strongest participant choices. The PCA is somewhat useful in that it shows the participant IA
groupings which were most in agreement with those of all other
participants. All of these, except the PCA for this writer’s test, can be viewed
at
Optimal Workshop (2007-2012).
3. What kinds of collaboration does it
allow?
In the free trial version, there is only one user login allowed,
although it is very easy to share results with the rest of the team (see next
section below). Similarly, only one
login is provided with the paid account, but it can be shared amongst a group of
users for the purpose of a project. If there were more than one project being
conducted by the one organisation, it would make sense to have a login for each
project group.
4. How easily can the processes/results
be shared?
As the Optimal Workshop link shows, (2007-2012), it is easy to make
results public. There are also a
range of results download options where further analysis can be conducted. Results need to be transferred to one of
the nominated formats/programs, such as Excel or a text file before saving,
manipulating and sharing.
Transferring data to say, Excel, is quite straightforward, involving just
one click.
5. Is it cost effective, time
effective?
From testing the free trial version, this is a great application,
easy to learn, easy to set up, and fast to execute. Surmising that for the cost of a month’s
subscription, it would be possible to set up an unlimited group of participants
with an unlimited set of cards to sort, with a range of analysis options and
easy sharing features, and have a full card sort study completed, this is
definite value for money.
Rating 4/5
Sources |
This Web Page Created with PageBreeze Free HTML Editor