|
|
|
|
|
Sorting Out Card Sorting |
|
|
|
|
|
[Home] [Abstract] [TOC] [Chapter 1] [Chapter 2] [Chapter 3] [Chapter 4] [Chapter 5] [Appendix A] [References] |
|
|
|
|
|
CHAPTER II – REVIEW OF REFERENCES The Review of References briefly annotates key literature that serves as a foundation for this research. Annotations are intended to convey the basic purpose of the literature and its primary contribution to this research. Notations include a report of the constructs used to establish the credibility of the literature. The selection of references for review is determined by one or more of the following criteria:
Selected references are organized into categories of:
Literature on Practitioner Guidelines Akerelrea, C. & Zimmerman, D. (2002). A group card sorting methodology for developing informational web sites. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE Professional Communications Conference. 437 – 445. According to Akerelrea and Zimmerman, as a communications medium the effectiveness of many websites is hindered because the websites fail to address the user’s needs. With substantial supporting citations, the authors suggest that web developers often view the website’s information from a different frame of reference than the audience for whom the information is intended. They contend that in order for communication to occur between the website and users, the sender’s and receiver’s frame of reference should overlap. Akerelrea and Zimmerman review a number of reports and guidelines on card sorting methods and present a seven-point list of the strengths of card sorting as a research methodology. A general set of card sorting guidelines is provided by Akerelrea and Zimmerman. The authors propose a follow-up to an open card sort that uses a focus group approach for determining a level on consensus on categories. Akerelrea and Zimmerman’s paper is a primary resource for this study. It provides a set of card sorting guidelines as data for the conceptual analysis and supporting rationale for the Problem Area, Purpose, and Significance. The most significant contribution of this paper is Akerelrea & Zimmerman’s suggestion that, in response to criticisms of the scientific validity of usability methods, further research is needed including “a comparative analysis of the different card sorting methodologies.” This has become the foundation for this study. The formulation
of Akerelrea and Zimmerman’s paper is well cited and the authors provide
27 references. It was accepted for presentation at the 2002 IEEE Professional
Communications Conference. The IEEE was formed in 1963 with the adoption of the first bylaws of the Deaton, M. (2002). Sorting techniques for user-centered information design. Retrieved March 30, 2005 from http://www.mmdeaton.com/SortingTechniquesforInformationDesign.doc Deaton begins with an historical overview of card sorting in the social sciences. The article contains quotes by other practitioners and researchers who expound on the value of card sorting as a methodology for understanding the organization of information from a users’ perspective. Deaton explains four card sort methods: “free” or open sorting, closed sorting, multiple sorting (a form of open sorting where participants sort the same set of objects multiple times based on different criteria), and successive sorting. Of the references located for this study, this researcher contends that Deaton’s work most closely examines a body of literature with the intent to identify characteristics of card sorting, categorize them, and assign properties to them. The author cites and compares the recommendations of two or three authors under each of the following headings:
Deaton’s work is used in this study as a source for definitions of a number of card sorting terminologies as well as supporting concepts presented by other authors in paraphrased statements made by this researcher. Deaton’s ideas are particularly instrumental in the formulation of the Full Purpose of this paper. Deaton’s article provides a brief comparison of quantitative card sorting characteristics from referenced literature and offers no suggestion of guidelines. As such, the quantitative characteristics are excluded from coding in the conceptual analysis. Deaton’s paper contains
thirty references and the paper is
well cited throughout. Deaton is a graduate research assistant in technical
communications at the Fuccella, J. & Pizzolato, J. (1998). Creating web site designs based on user expectations and feedback. Retrieved April 3, 2005 from http://www.internettg.org/newsletter/june98/web_design.html IBM Usability Specialists Fuccella and Pizzolato offer a number of reasons for involving end users in a website design process. This paper discusses research methods used for input into a card sorting exercise design. The authors describe the use of “active” and “passive” user surveys to define their audience and the use of focus groups, iterative surveys, exploratory surveys, scenario building exercises, and competitive review for identifying requirements and tasks and ultimately, identifying content for the card sort. The authors provide generalized set of guidelines for the design of a card sorting exercise. Although the paper is not widely cited in this study, Fuccella and Pizzolato strongly contribute to this research with their suggestion of methods for defining audiences and tasks. These topics are not specifically covered in this research; however, their paper is used as a basis for the identification of potential properties in the categories of audience and task definition. The identification of these properties may prove beneficial for an extended study of card sorting criteria. Fuccella and Pizzolato do not provide references in this 1998 paper, published in a newsletter of the Internet Technical Group. However, the paper is cited and referenced in at least three other resources used in this research and the expertise of the authors, by nature of their employment, was deemed credible and within the criteria for admissibility of literature. Maurer, D., & Warfel, T. (2004). Card sorting: A definitive guide. Retrieved March 25, 2005 from http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/card_sorting_a_definitive_guilde.php Maurer and Warfel’s article on card sorting is an informative work that identifies a number of considerations for the design and conducting of a card sorting exercise. The authors work at private information design firms as usability specialists and have worked under contract for a number of large multinational firms. This “definitive guide” is written based on the collective experiences of the authors and provides data for a number of categories in the conceptual analysis in this paper. Maurer and Warfel’s article also provides supporting conceptual reinforcement for paraphrased statements and definitions in the Full Purpose of this study. Although the article is not cited or published in a peer-reviewed journal, the experience of the authors, its acceptance for publishing on the reputable Boxes and Arrows.com website, and informal references to the article on a number of practitioner web sites provided credibility to the resource and to the guidelines. Ahlstrom, V. & Allendoerfer, K.
(2004). Information
organization for a portal using a card-sorting technique. This is a comprehensive and descriptive case report that outlines the card sorting methods used in the navigation design of an employee portal for the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Ahlstrom and Allendoerfer present well-formed arguments on the advantages and disadvantages of a number of characteristics of card sorting methods. The introduction to the report is cited and the description of the card sorting exercise provides a rich set of data for the conceptual analysis in this paper. Ahlstrom & Allendoerfer’s paper should be studied by practitioners for a full understanding of the concepts presented in their paper. Ahlstrom and Allendoerfer present the only empirical study located by this researcher that investigates a qualitative vs. quantitative analysis of the card sorting results. Although the entire set of results of the data analysis is not made available, examples are provided and a brief conclusion is offered. The authors are employed by the FAA and they were involved with the design of navigation structures for the WJHTC employee portal. The authors have also worked on a number of other FAA information design projects. This status provides substantial credibility to Ahlstrom and Allendoerfer. The paper is published on the Technotes website of the FAA. Literature on Research Methodology Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies
for qualitative research. Originally presented by Glaser and Strauss as a methodology for sociological research, grounded theory and the constant comparative method have been adapted for qualitative research in a wide range of disciplines. The underlying premise of grounded theory research is the absence of hypothetical presumption by the researcher. A sampling of qualitative data is reviewed with “theoretical sensitivity,” with the intent to identify recurring themes or concepts, categorize them, and assign qualitative properties to those concepts. The researcher may then seek further data to strengthen an emergent theory. This resource serves as a primary foundation for the development of the hybrid conceptual analysis and constant comparative methodology used in this study. This
groundbreaking monograph on qualitative research methodology has withstood
nearly four decades of scrutiny and has survived virtually unscathed. The
latest printing is 1999 and it ranked Number Palmquist, M., et al. (2005). Content analysis. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University Department of English. Retrieved April 8, 2005 from http://writing.colostate.edu/references/research/content/ This website on the basics of content analysis is brief and succinct; the presentation of the conceptual analysis process is written clearly for the novice researcher and may be an excellent refresher resource for the experienced researcher. This resource serves as a primary foundation for the development of the hybrid conceptual analysis and constant comparative methodology used in this study and provides a number of Definitions (see Appendix A) for the study. A search on
Google for “writing@csu” (the name
of the Literature
for Foundational Morville, P. & Rosenfeld, L.
(2002). Information
architecture for the world wide web. This popular book on the emerging science of Information Architecture is widely cited in recent literature. Morville and Rosenfeld present a wide range of concepts that provide both the novice and experienced information architect with a foundational understanding of how this emerging discipline has evolved and where it may be destined. Although card sorting is only one of the many topics discussed, this text provides context for practitioners who are interested in card sorting as an information design tool. Morville and Rosenfeld provide reinforcement for concepts and definitions in the Full Purpose and Significance sections of this study. This recent book is referenced by Mauer and Warfel (2004) and is widely referenced on practitioner websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
Read in Browser | Download PDF ©2005
Steven D. Hannah
|