Card sorting case study

Card sorting a connected car app: system menus or proximity?

By UXbeam, information architecture tools and services since 2021 · Updated August 12, 2026

Connected car apps typically organize automotive features by vehicle system, such as climate, security, access, charging and maintenance. An open card sort surfaced another organization based on proximity to the car.

UXbeam turned both into candidate navigation structures and tested them with the same eight tree testing tasks on separate participant groups. The proximity structure reached 70.1% task success; the OEM-style structure reached 60.4%. Different tasks favored different structures, so the task-level results matter more than the overall score.

Connected car apps: most owners have one, few reach for it

Almost every new car above a base trim ships with a companion app. The J.D. Power 2025 U.S. OEM ICE App Report finds that nearly 80% of owners use their vehicle's app, and 27% use it frequentlyJ.D. PowerJ.D. Power2025 U.S. OEM ICE App ReportDec 2025 · 2,100 ICE vehicle owners. Connectivity and speed take most of the blame. Navigation may contribute too. The audited apps organize features in very similar ways.

App use and satisfaction, non-EV brand apps
nearly 80% use the app · 27% use it frequently

J.D. Power 2025 U.S. OEM ICE App Report. Satisfaction on a 1,000-point scale, four ranked apps shown; 668 is the premium-segment average.

To ground the study, UXbeam audited the feature sets of five OEM companion apps plus KeyConnect, a third-party digital-key app that spans dozens of makes. The audit produced 24 features covering access, climate, charging and fuel, security, maintenance, and location. Each of the five OEM apps presents those features grouped by vehicle system.

FordPass app icon FordPassFord HondaLink app icon HondaLinkHonda Tesla app icon Tesla myCadillac app icon myCadillacGM MyHyundai with Bluelink app icon MyHyundai with BluelinkHyundai KeyConnect app icon KeyConnectThird-party digital key

An open card sort found two organizing logics in the same features

UXbeam ran an open card sort: participants received the 24 feature cards and grouped them however made sense, naming their own categories. Across about 60 US adults, two broad organizational patterns appeared. Most participants grouped features by vehicle system, the way every audited OEM app already does. About a quarter organized the same features around access and proximity: what the car does, and what the phone does on the car's behalf when you are somewhere else.

The broad sample is deliberate. Cars get used by far more people than their owners: drivers rent them, borrow one from family, take over a partner's EV for the weekend, or ride along and get asked to warm the cabin from the back seat. Someone who has never opened FordPass may still need to pop the trunk, check the charge, or find where the car is parked. Common vehicle interactions should stay understandable beyond the trained owner of one brand's app, so the card sort started from a broad population of US adults instead of existing connected-car app users.

Card sorting 24 connected-car feature cards: about 60 participants sort them, an OEM-style pattern (3 in 4 participants) and a proximity pattern (1 in 4) emerge, and each becomes a tree structure headed for a tree test of the same eight tasks.
1 · 24 FEATURE CARDS 2 · ≈60 PARTICIPANTS SORT 3 · TWO PATTERNS 4 · TWO STRUCTURES 5 · TREE TEST Tire Pressure Monitoring Heated Steering Wheel Vehicle Status Reports Schedule Maintenance Car Notifications one deck · every participant OEM 3 in 4 participants CLIMATE ACCESS SECURITY CHARGING · FUEL MAINT LOCATION PROXIMITY 1 in 4 participants NEAR AWAY STATUS TREE A CLIMATESECURITYVEHICLE ACCESS CHARGING & FUELLOCATION · MAINT TREE B NEARBYAWAY VEHICLE STATUSSETTINGS TREE TEST BOTH SAME 8 TASKS
Climate Control
Sentry Mode
Fuel Level
Start Engine
Open Trunk
Lock/Unlock Vehicle
24 cards · ≈60 participants · 2 patterns · 2 tested structures

Participants created and named their own categories. Among the companion apps we audited, none used proximity or the user's relationship to the vehicle as the primary navigation structure.

The tree test: same eight tasks, separate groups

We tested both structures with the same eight tasks, using separate participant groups. Before participant testing, the final versions were cleaned up to remove duplicate destinations and obvious wording cues.

Each group had 18 participants in the clean set, drawn from the same US panel. Participants saw labels and hierarchy only, one task at a time. The eight tasks, verbatim:

  1. You're in the parking lot and want to start your car remotely before you get to it.
  2. You want the cabin temperature set to 72°F before you get in.
  3. Your hands are full. You need to get into the boot without putting anything down.
  4. You're leaving your car overnight in an unfamiliar area. You want to turn on the security monitoring.
  5. You're at home and realize you may have left your car unlocked at the station.
  6. You have a meeting at 9am tomorrow 12 miles away. You want the car ready and warm when you leave at 8:30.
  7. You parked somewhere unfamiliar two hours ago and can't remember exactly where.
  8. You're about to leave on a long drive and want to check your fuel level.

Overall: 70.1% task success for proximity, 60.4% for the convention

Across 144 attempts per structure, the proximity tree finished at 70.1% task success (101 of 144) and the OEM-style tree at 60.4% (87 of 144). Direct success, reaching the destination without backtracking, landed at 43.8% (63 of 144) for both.

Task success by structure
A · OEM-style
60.4%
B · Proximity
70.1%

18 participants per structure · 8 tasks each. Share of attempts reaching a correct destination. Direct success was 43.8% in both structures.

The overall scores conceal large differences between individual tasks.

Where each structure wins and loses

Task success per structure · n=18 each
T1 · Start the car remotelyThe parking-lot context maps cleanly onto Nearby
A
72%
B
89%
T2 · Cabin to 72°FMediocre in both; Direct: A 56% vs B 28%
A
61%
B
67%
T3 · Open the boot, hands fullPhysical actions have an obvious home in both
A
78%
B
72%
T4 · Turn on security monitoring overnightThe widest gap: leaving the car overnight reads as Away
A
33%
B
83%
T5 · Unlock check from homeSimilar success; Direct: B 61% vs A 17%
A
72%
B
67%
T6 · Schedule tomorrow's departureBoth structures fail; B never produced a direct path
A
33%
B
28%
T7 · Find the parked carA's win: Location is a cleaner label than Away
A
83%
B
61%
T8 · Check range before a long driveVehicle Status outperforms Charging & Fuel
A
50%
B
94%

Percent of attempts reaching a correct destination, per task. Readings summarize the paths participants took.

Situational tasks tended to favor proximity. Security monitoring from afar reached 83% success with the proximity structure versus 33% with the OEM-style structure, and checking range before a long drive reached 94% versus 50%. Tasks that match a familiar label favored the OEM-style structure: finding a parked car under Location reached 83% versus 61%. Neither structure gave participants a clear place for scheduled departure.

Card sorting opened a second design direction

The card sort revealed a radically different structure. Tree testing showed it could outperform the conventional IA on key tasks. It raised success on situational tasks like security monitoring and range checks, and it lost ground where the convention's labels are strong, like finding a parked car. A pattern from roughly a quarter of card sort participants was enough to produce a testable information architecture, and the tree test did the judging.

Reading multiple sorting patterns

Most participants share one patternRefine the convention
A coherent minority pattern appearsBuild it as a candidate IA
Two candidate structures existTree test both, same tasks

Three ways to organize the same automotive features

Mercedes-Benz has tested a third approach inside the vehicle. MBUX Zero Layer brings contextually relevant functions to the top level instead of requiring drivers to find them through fixed submenus. Zero Layer changes what the in-car screen shows; the UXbeam proximity structure changes how a companion app groups actions. Among the companion apps we audited, none uses proximity or the driver's relationship to the vehicle as the primary navigation structure.

OEM-style companion apps

Companion app
Organized by

Vehicle system

ClimateSecurityAccessFuel
User experience

Choose a vehicle system, then find the action.

UXbeam proximity nav

Companion app
Organized by

Near · Away · Status

Actions are grouped by the user's situation relative to the car.

User experience

Start from whether you are near the car, away from it, or checking its status.

Mercedes-Benz Zero Layer

In-car interface
Organized by

What is relevant right now

SituationHabitCurrent need
User experience

Likely functions appear at the top level instead of requiring submenu navigation.

2021Mercedes-BenzMBUX Zero Layer launches with the EQS, bringing contextually relevant functions to the top level.
Feb 2023Mercedes-BenzZero Layer expands to C-Class and S-Class vehicles through an over-the-air update.
Jan 2025BMWBMW presents Panoramic iDrive and Operating System X at CES, with widgets that adapt to driver habits.

Method note

  • Card sort: open sort, 24 cards, self-named categories, run in UXbeam. Analysis snapshot at about 60 participants.
  • Participants in both studies were US-based adults recruited through online panels, deliberately not restricted to current connected-car app owners. The research question is whether participants can find common vehicle interactions under a given structure, so general-population findability is the right measure.
  • A third, smaller sorting pattern pointed toward a non-navigational concept and was explored separately; it is not part of this tree test comparison.
  • Tree tests: the OEM-style tree (A, version 2, with decoy destinations) fielded April 12 to 19, 2026; the proximity tree (B, version 3) April 7 to 11, 2026. Task order randomized; leading terms audited before launch.
  • Clean sets are 18 participants per structure. Excluded: internal walkthrough sessions, one placeholder-ID session per tree, one outlier session in the proximity tree, and one participant who completed both trees (their second, exposed session; they were removed from both for symmetry).
  • Rates are observed percentages of completed attempts (144 per structure). No statistical-significance claims are made; per-task gaps of a few points are noise, and the large gaps (T4, T7, T8) are the interpretable ones.
  • The two structures were tested with identical task order logic and the same eight task instructions.

Sources

Study data: UXbeam card sorting and tree testing sessions shown on this page.

Find the structures your users would propose

Run a card sort, take each pattern to a tree test, and compare structures on the same tasks.
No participant caps. Full analytics included. No credit card required.

Run a free card sort