[Sigia-l] card sorting

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Todd R.Warfel
>  
> On Sunday, June 1, 2003, at 10:22 PM, Boniface Lau wrote:
> 
> > However, observing the order among groups, regardless of how easy
> > it is, is still required for successful grouping.
> 
> You previously stated that by "order" you meant "sequence" (see
> below). And here you're stating that in your opinion, without that
> sequential order, the groups are not valid. 

Your paraphrasing is not what I meant.

BTW, "order means sequence" does not translate to "sequential order".
Frankly, I don't even know what "sequential order" is supposed to
mean. To me "sequential order" is like saying "orderly order". But
what does it mean to have "orderly order"?


[...]
> 
> >> The participants observe piles, but not an order in the sense of
> >> a traditional order (e.g. sequence).
> >
> > I don't know what you are trying to say. Please elaborate.
> 
> If you've ever done a (content inventory) card sort, then you would
> know that the participants will often create the "groups" as piles.
> They simply stack, or pile, the content for one group into a stack,
> or pile. They typically do not put them in sequential order as
> you've suggested.

You are talking about order "within" groups. But all along, I have
been talking about order "among" groups. The two are very different.
No wonder you kept disagreeing.


[...]
> 
> A sequence by definition is one after the other, an order. This does
> not apply as a requirement for a successful card sort in traditional
> IA (a content inventory card sort).

I am not sure what you mean. May be you are still commenting from the
perspective of order "within" groups while my point was about order
"among" groups.


> 
> > This thread has been about card sort. Now you mention "inventory
> > card sort". I assume it is a type of card sort. May be you can
> > tell us how you do "inventory card sort".
> 
> I've maintained the same position during this thread - card sorts in
> the context of IA. 

But part way through this discussion you changed the name you used for
referring to things. That is misleading.


> And in the context of IA, card sorts are typically done on a content
> inventory.

So those IAs who see card sorts typically done on a "list" call it
"list card sort". 

Those IAs who see card sorts typically done on an "index" call it
"index card sort". 

When those IAs want to communicate, questions fly. What you mean by
"list card sort"? What do mean by "index card sort"? What do you mean
by "content inventory card sort"? How does that differ from "card
sort"?


> So, to clarify I've used the term "content inventory card sort."

Instead of clarify, such name misleads people into believing that what
other IAs called "card sort" and what you called "content inventory
card sort" are not the same.


> If you'd like to find out more about it, you can find out more of
> the details in this paper: Modeling Organization - Methods for
> Increasing a System's Findability
> http://messagefirst.com/downloads/ModelingOrganization.pdf .

That paper refers to "card sort", not "content inventory card sort".
So when you say "content inventory card sort", those who have read
your paper understand that you really mean "card sort". Those who
haven't read your paper believe you are referring to something else.
A setup for miscommunication.

Regarding your usages of the name "content inventory card sort" in
this discussion, they have been inconsistent. Here are the various
forms that you have used:

* "content inventory (card) sort"
* "(content inventory) card sort"
* "content inventory card sort"

Were the shifting/disappearing of brackets supposed to indicate
something? What are the differences in meaning regarding the various
forms?

Despite your justification claiming that "card sorts are typically
done on a content inventory", your own paper on card sort makes
absolutely no mention of content inventory. That suggested that it is
not that "typical" even by your very own experience.

Your paper said:

MO> Once the cards are shuffled, the participants are asked to sort the
MO> items into like groups.

But there is nothing about how the participants are supposed to "sort
the items into like groups" - which is the focus of this discussion.

Can you step us through the process on how your participants are
supposed to "sort the items into like groups"?


Boniface