About UXbeam

UXbeam’s participant experience became available in English, Spanish, French, German and Portuguese, with localized instructions and consent. Study authors retain control over the language selected for the participant journey.

A neat average grouping can hide real disagreement. UXbeam’s Card Sorting uncertainty map makes the hard decisions visible: cards people split across groups, items left alone and boundaries that never settled.

Researchers can explore those competing choices and open a promising organization pattern directly in Sitemap+ to work on the structure with the uncertainty in view.

A study can show reasonable success on each individual task while very few people successfully complete the full set. Those two pictures lead to very different conclusions.

UXbeam’s compact completion view makes the difference immediately visible. Each participant’s tasks appear together, with the failures standing out, so researchers can see whether the difficulty is isolated or affects the broader journey.

Two tasks can have the same success rate and completely different stories. One group reaches the answer directly; another takes a wrong turn, backtracks and eventually recovers.

UXbeam Path Replay shows those stories. Follow the route through the tree, filter by outcome and inspect a single participant’s choices. The visualization makes navigation confusion tangible and gives researchers something specific to improve.

Sometimes reaching the right section is the task. A support category, a product family or a section landing page may be the meaningful destination—even when deeper pages sit beneath it.

UXbeam lets researchers score that intermediate category as correct while preserving the real navigation hierarchy. They can test the decision that matters instead of flattening the structure to satisfy the tool.

A proposed structure carries more weight when everyone can see the research behind it. UXbeam keeps the connection between a Card Sort, the Tree Test built from it and any related App Intel work.

Researchers can trace a navigation decision back to its original evidence—useful when explaining recommendations to colleagues, defending a change or returning to a project months later.

During iteration, UXbeam presents a focused view of the tasks that participants struggled with, where they went instead and how often each wrong route occurred.

Researchers see the evidence at the moment they can act on it: change the problematic label or branch, then run the next iteration. No hunting through an entire results report to remember what needed fixing.

A real information architecture may give people more than one legitimate place to find the same information. Scoring only one destination as correct can turn a sensible choice into an artificial failure.

UXbeam lets researchers define multiple valid destinations for a task. The test evaluates whether people reached an acceptable answer—not whether they guessed the one location the test author happened to select.

UXbeam introduced Card Sorting alongside Tree Testing so researchers could both discover how people organize information and validate the navigation they design. The resulting groups could be worked into an editable candidate structure rather than left as a disconnected set of charts.

UXbeam introduced participant Tree Testing that records the full navigation route: every choice, detour, return and final destination. The result shows how people navigated—not just whether they finished at the expected page.

The results now bring first-click patterns and final destinations together. A researcher can see when a promising-looking success rate hides a misleading first label, a detour or backtracking. That makes it much easier to identify what to improve.

Pretest data gave researchers a fast way to assess a navigation draft, adjust labels or groupings, and try another version within the same session. Instead of treating the first structure as the finished answer, teams could explore alternatives while changes were still easy to make.

UXbeam launched on the belief that setting up a Tree Test should be as quick as putting a navigation idea into words. Researchers write the hierarchy as an indented outline, mark task destinations beside the relevant labels, and add the corresponding tasks—all in one place.

The novelty was the authoring model. A structure discussed in a workshop could be turned into a runnable Tree Test in minutes, while the team was still working through the idea.