446 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
446 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# Design Evolution Log
|
|
|
|
A chronological record of why significant design decisions were made. This is NOT a changelog. It records the product's evolution of thinking.
|
|
|
|
This document records discoveries, not decisions. Every entry represents our best understanding at that point in time and may later be superseded by a better model.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1
|
|
|
|
Simple conversational investigation
|
|
|
|
Question → Answer interaction.
|
|
|
|
Purpose:
|
|
Prove the reasoning loop.
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
Conversation alone does not provide sufficient context during longer investigations.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2
|
|
|
|
Persistent investigation notebook
|
|
|
|
Added:
|
|
|
|
- current understanding
|
|
- original situation
|
|
- investigation history
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
Users need persistent context rather than remembering previous answers.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3
|
|
|
|
Document workspace
|
|
|
|
Created a coherent workspace with:
|
|
|
|
- investigation status
|
|
- current investigation
|
|
- response
|
|
- understanding
|
|
- investigation map placeholder
|
|
- situation
|
|
- history
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
The interface became usable but still behaved like a document rather than a workspace.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4 (Current Exploration)
|
|
|
|
Facilitated Investigation Workshop
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
|
Experimental.
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis:
|
|
|
|
The Confidence Engine is not:
|
|
|
|
- a chatbot
|
|
- a dashboard
|
|
- a form
|
|
|
|
It is a facilitated investigation workspace.
|
|
|
|
The interface should resemble the environment in which structured thinking happens.
|
|
|
|
Record discoveries rather than conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Leave room for future phases.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4 — Guiding Principles
|
|
|
|
The Confidence Engine is a workspace, not a document.
|
|
|
|
People think in multiple directions simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
Useful context should be visible together.
|
|
|
|
The interface should favour thinking over scrolling.
|
|
|
|
The workspace should feel like a large desk or workshop rather than a narrow report.
|
|
|
|
The engine facilitates thinking.
|
|
|
|
The user contributes evidence.
|
|
|
|
The workspace captures shared understanding.
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 01 — Wider canvas
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis:
|
|
The document-like feeling is caused partly by the narrow outer container.
|
|
|
|
Change:
|
|
Increase the available desktop workspace width without rearranging any components.
|
|
|
|
Result:
|
|
Confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
Increasing the outer workspace width reduced the narrow-document feeling and made better use of large displays.
|
|
|
|
Unexpected learning:
|
|
Width alone did not create a workshop. The wider canvas exposed that the interface still behaves as a collection of independent cards, with supporting artefacts unsure how to use the available space.
|
|
|
|
Decision:
|
|
Keep the wider desktop canvas.
|
|
|
|
Next question:
|
|
Can grouping the interface into cognitive work zones make the wider canvas feel like a coherent investigation surface?
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 02 — Cognitive work zones
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis:
|
|
A workspace organised around what the investigator is doing will feel more coherent than one organised around equal cards or equal columns.
|
|
|
|
Result:
|
|
Partially confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
|
|
The workspace feels more coherent when organised into cognitive work zones rather than a simple document stack.
|
|
|
|
However, another distinction emerged that is more important than the zones themselves.
|
|
|
|
The interface naturally separates into two different modes:
|
|
|
|
• the active conversation between investigator and facilitator
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
• the shared workspace describing the current understanding.
|
|
|
|
Unexpected learning:
|
|
|
|
History feels incorrect when treated as reference information.
|
|
|
|
History is actually the continuation of the investigator's conversation.
|
|
|
|
Every response immediately becomes history.
|
|
|
|
The notebook should therefore grow naturally from the Response area.
|
|
|
|
The Investigation Status card currently competes with the Current Investigation card.
|
|
|
|
The current question is the primary focus.
|
|
|
|
Status is supporting context.
|
|
|
|
Decision:
|
|
|
|
Keep the cognitive-zone concept.
|
|
|
|
Refine the zones around conversational flow instead of card grouping.
|
|
|
|
Next question:
|
|
Can the workspace clearly separate conversation from shared understanding?
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 03 — Conversation versus Workspace
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Investigators think in two simultaneous modes.
|
|
|
|
Mode 1:
|
|
The conversation.
|
|
|
|
Question
|
|
↓
|
|
|
|
Response
|
|
↓
|
|
|
|
History
|
|
|
|
Mode 2:
|
|
The shared workspace.
|
|
|
|
Status
|
|
|
|
Understanding
|
|
|
|
Situation
|
|
|
|
Map
|
|
|
|
Separating these should make the interface feel more like a facilitated investigation than a collection of cards.
|
|
|
|
Evaluation:
|
|
Partially confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
|
|
The workspace feels more coherent when organised into cognitive zones rather than a simple document stack.
|
|
|
|
However, another distinction emerged that is more important than the zones themselves.
|
|
|
|
The interface naturally separates into two different modes:
|
|
|
|
• the active conversation between investigator and facilitator
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
• the shared workspace describing the current understanding.
|
|
|
|
Unexpected learning:
|
|
|
|
History feels incorrect when treated as reference information.
|
|
|
|
History is actually the continuation of the investigator's conversation.
|
|
|
|
Every response immediately becomes history.
|
|
|
|
The notebook should therefore grow naturally from the Response area.
|
|
|
|
The Investigation Status card currently competes with the Current Investigation card.
|
|
|
|
The current question is the primary focus.
|
|
|
|
Status is supporting context.
|
|
|
|
Decision:
|
|
|
|
Keep the cognitive-zone concept.
|
|
|
|
Refine the zones around conversational flow instead of card grouping.
|
|
|
|
Next question:
|
|
Can the workspace clearly separate conversation from shared understanding?
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 04 — Facilitated Workshop Introduction
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Beginning with a facilitator-style introduction will create more confidence than presenting an empty workspace.
|
|
|
|
Questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the interface feel more welcoming?
|
|
- Does reducing the visual weight of the textarea improve the first experience?
|
|
- Does separating "starting" from "investigating" feel natural?
|
|
- Does the transition into the investigation workspace feel meaningful?
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
|
Experimental.
|
|
|
|
Result:
|
|
Partially confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Learning:
|
|
|
|
The facilitator introduction reduced the intimidation of the first screen.
|
|
|
|
Replacing the empty landing page with a guided introduction improved the emotional tone.
|
|
|
|
However, stacking the introduction above the input still gives the introduction excessive visual prominence.
|
|
|
|
Repeat users may not want to repeatedly read the same introduction.
|
|
|
|
Orientation should remain available without dominating the workflow.
|
|
|
|
Decision:
|
|
|
|
Keep the introduction concept but change its spatial relationship to the workspace — move it from above to beside, making it optional rather than mandatory.
|
|
|
|
Next question:
|
|
Does a horizontal facilitator/workspace layout feel more natural?
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 05 — Facilitator Panel and Adaptive Landing Workspace
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Placing the facilitator beside the working area will feel more like entering a facilitated workshop than stacking instructional content above the workspace.
|
|
|
|
Allowing the user to dismiss the facilitator will reduce friction for returning users while preserving onboarding for new users.
|
|
|
|
Questions
|
|
|
|
- Does a horizontal facilitator/workspace layout feel more natural?
|
|
- Does the user's eye move naturally from facilitator to workspace?
|
|
- Does the workspace become the primary focus?
|
|
- Does "Don't show again" feel preferable to automatically hiding the introduction?
|
|
- Should the facilitator panel become an optional workspace companion rather than mandatory onboarding?
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
|
Completed.
|
|
|
|
Findings:
|
|
|
|
- A horizontal facilitator/workspace arrangement feels more natural than stacked onboarding.
|
|
- The workspace becomes the visual destination rather than the introduction.
|
|
- User-controlled dismissal is preferable to automatic hiding.
|
|
- The facilitator feels useful but visually too passive.
|
|
- Remaining issues are now visual hierarchy rather than layout architecture.
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 06 — Focused Investigation
|
|
|
|
Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
The interface should gently guide attention towards the current task without hiding supporting information.
|
|
|
|
Reducing competition between panels may improve concentration more than introducing additional colour or decoration.
|
|
|
|
Questions
|
|
|
|
- Does visual emphasis naturally guide the eye?
|
|
- Can supporting panels become quieter without disappearing?
|
|
- Does the investigation question become the obvious focal point?
|
|
- Does the workspace feel calmer?
|
|
- Are we approaching a professional investigation environment?
|
|
|
|
Status:
|
|
Closed.
|
|
|
|
## Result
|
|
|
|
Partially confirmed.
|
|
|
|
## What did we learn?
|
|
|
|
- Stronger visual hierarchy can direct attention without rearranging the interface.
|
|
- The facilitator briefing became easier to distinguish.
|
|
- Colour and tint improved separation only modestly.
|
|
- Meaning must not depend on colour.
|
|
- Areas and intent should remain distinguishable through structure, spacing, typography, borders, shape and placement.
|
|
- The initial textarea still implies that the user should provide a detailed report.
|
|
- The size of an input communicates the amount of information expected.
|
|
|
|
## Decision
|
|
|
|
Retain the useful hierarchy refinements provisionally.
|
|
|
|
Do not increase reliance on colour.
|
|
|
|
Defer dark mode and broader palette work.
|
|
|
|
The next experiment should test whether a smaller starting input better communicates that the user only needs to provide an initial observation.
|
|
|
|
Do not rewrite previous experiments.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 07 — Lightweight Starting Observation
|
|
|
|
#### Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
A smaller initial input will make beginning an investigation feel easier and will communicate that the engine needs only a concise observation rather than a complete analysis.
|
|
|
|
#### Questions
|
|
|
|
- Does the input feel like a conversation starter rather than a report form?
|
|
- Is three to four visible lines sufficient?
|
|
- Does the facilitator panel and input area feel better balanced?
|
|
- Does the user understand that further detail will be gathered through questions?
|
|
- Does reducing the input height make the Analyse action easier to notice?
|
|
|
|
#### Evaluation
|
|
|
|
Pending visual review.
|
|
|
|
#### Result
|
|
|
|
Confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Four visible rows better communicates a starting observation than six.
|
|
|
|
Input size communicates expected effort.
|
|
|
|
"What have you noticed?" reinforces observational thinking.
|
|
|
|
Users are encouraged to begin rather than compose.
|
|
|
|
The facilitator and workspace now feel more balanced.
|
|
|
|
This interaction principle should continue throughout the investigation rather than existing only on the landing page.
|
|
|
|
#### Decision
|
|
|
|
Retain the smaller landing input.
|
|
|
|
Proceed to investigate consistency between the landing experience and investigation responses.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Experiment 08 — Consistent Investigation Responses
|
|
|
|
#### Hypothesis
|
|
|
|
Every answer given during an investigation should feel like an observation, not a report.
|
|
|
|
The response component should therefore communicate the same expected effort as the initial scenario input.
|
|
|
|
#### Questions
|
|
|
|
- Does a smaller response area reduce perceived effort?
|
|
- Does the investigation feel more conversational?
|
|
- Does consistency improve confidence?
|
|
- Does the workspace become visually calmer?
|
|
- Does the current investigation remain the dominant focus?
|
|
|
|
#### Status
|
|
|
|
Experimental.
|
|
|
|
No conclusions yet.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Current Open Questions
|
|
|
|
The following are active explorations rather than decisions.
|
|
|
|
- What is the right metaphor for the product?
|
|
- Should the workspace resemble a facilitated workshop?
|
|
- How should decomposition be represented?
|
|
- What information belongs in shared understanding?
|
|
- What should the Investigation Map eventually become?
|
|
- How should wide thinking be reflected in the interface?
|
|
|
|
## Backlog — Experiment 05 Persistence Note
|
|
|
|
The "Don't show this introduction again" checkbox uses sessionStorage as a placeholder.
|
|
|
|
This preference should eventually be handled through user preferences or settings rather than local component state.
|
|
|
|
TODO: When user accounts are introduced, persist this preference to the user profile so it travels across devices and sessions.
|
|
|
|
## Future Note — Dark Mode
|
|
|
|
Dark mode is intentionally deferred.
|
|
|
|
Once the information architecture and visual hierarchy stabilise we will investigate whether an "Investigation Mode" (rather than a conventional dark mode) improves concentration.
|
|
|
|
This should be treated as a future UX experiment rather than an accessibility feature.
|