[Sigia-l] card sorting

[Boniface Lau]

> From: twarfel at mac.com [mailto:twarfel at mac.com]
> Todd R. Warfel
>
[...]
>
> > But you disagreed by claiming that in your way of sorting items
> > into groups, there is no need to observe order. When I asked you
> > for the specifics, you referred me to your paper. When I followed
> > up by looking into your paper, I found nothing on your way of
> > sorting items into groups.
>
> On the second page:
> [...]
> In the low-fidelity approach, a group of users is typically provided
> a set of index cards that contain the system’s content, or features.
> Optionally, the group may be given a list of content, or features,
> and a set of blank cards and asked to write each item on a single
> card. This second option is more time consuming, but has the
> advantage of planting the seed of the content, or feature in the
> users’ memory. We’ve found that they tend to remember
> content/features better and actively look for particular items while
> sorting.
>
> Once the cards are shuffled, the participants are asked to sort the
> items into like groups. Once they are satisfied with the grouping,
> they should give it a name that makes sense to them. When the group
> is done, the person administering the card sort records the
> groupings for future analysis.
> [...]

You yourself had already admitted that your paper does not indicate
*how* to sort items into groups. See:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0306/0021print.html

So I am not sure what to make of your above citation from that same
paper.


>
> As Eric's stated as well, it's not that complicated. You're making
> it out to be a very step-by-step process.

Because I know what I am talking about.

So, instead of questioning your experience, I simply step you through
the process of sorting things into groups.


> It's really not, unless you over-analyze it.

It is like a senior layperson arguing with a neuroscientist on how we
see. The senior would say, "Young man, what experience do you have in
seeing? I have much more experience than you do. Seeing is not that
complicated. People just open their eyes and they see."

But the neuroscientist knows that there is much more to how we see.
Different parts of the brain are involved in order to see.

To the senior, the neuroscientist is over-analyzing the very simple
thing of seeing by "making it out to be a very step-by-step process."
So, the senior slowly disappeared into the sunset mumbling, "It's
really not, unless you over-analyze it."

The problem is that, in spite of the senior's experience, the
understanding was very shallow when comparing with that of the
neuroscientist.


> As I've stated before, and as the paper states, participants are
> simply asked to sort the content, or features, into groups that make
> sense to them. Once that is done, they should give each group a name
> that makes sense to them. That's it.
>
> > So, to substantiate your claim, please walk us through your
> > process of sorting items into groups to demonstrate that there is
> > indeed no need to observe order.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Todd R. Warfel

Since you cannot even walk us through your process, you are NOT
equipped to argue with anyone on whether order needs to be observed to
sort things into groups.


Boniface