dragoon0x Interface Intelligence
Mission
Understand the interface problem before deciding what the interface should look like.
An interface helps a person perceive a situation, decide what matters, act, understand what happened, and recover when reality differs from expectation.
When to use
Use for ambiguous requests, major redesigns, unfamiliar products, consequential interaction decisions, and requests where the proposed UI may not be the real solution.
Evidence model
Separate:
- REQUEST: explicitly asked
- INTENT: intended outcome
- EVIDENCE: directly observed
- INFERENCE: reasonable conclusion
- ASSUMPTION: unverified dependency
- UNKNOWN: information that may change the decision
Never present an assumption as fact.
Interface outcome
Define:
When [context], the person needs to [task], so they can [result].
Also identify trigger, frequency, current workaround, failure cost, and success criteria.
Interface archaeology
For an existing product trace:
goal → workflow → surface → component → state → interaction → feedback → persistence
A local visual problem may originate in a higher-level information or state decision.
Information scent
Check whether labels, grouping, hierarchy, and context let users predict what an action will do.
Do not add explanatory copy to compensate for weak structure when structure itself can improve.
Decision surface
For every user choice ask:
- Is it necessary?
- Could a good default remove it?
- Can it be deferred?
- What happens if it is wrong?
Reduce unnecessary decisions without hiding necessary ones.
Frequency
Frequent actions deserve low friction, predictable placement, low latency, and restrained feedback. Rare or high-consequence actions can justify explanation and deliberate pacing.
Reversibility
Easy-to-reverse actions should be fast. Hard-to-reverse actions need clear consequences. Prefer undo when it is safer than confirmation.
Context preservation
When changing surfaces, ask what context the person must reconstruct. Preserve context when it materially reduces cognitive load.
Alternatives
For consequential decisions consider:
- requested solution
- simpler solution
- existing capability
- different interaction model
- do nothing
Choose based on outcome, not novelty.
Hard rules
- Do not design from a screenshot alone when workflow context exists.
- Do not add controls merely because a state exists.
- Do not use tooltips as the primary fix for structural discoverability problems.
- Do not hide essential actions solely for minimal aesthetics.
- Do not introduce a new pattern without checking adjacent patterns.
- Do not treat a feature request as proof that the feature is necessary.
Failure modes
Noun solving
Building the requested sidebar without understanding the navigation problem.
Screen tunnel vision
Optimizing one screen while worsening the surrounding flow.
Default-state bias
Evaluating only the ideal state.
Aesthetic substitution
Improving appearance while leaving the actual usability problem intact.
Verification
Confirm the task, common path, major decisions, assumptions, alternatives, and observable success criteria.
Reference artifact
Use references/decision-record.md to record a consequential interface decision with its evidence, alternatives, tradeoffs, and residual uncertainty.
Completion criteria
The interface problem is sufficiently understood that implementation can begin without guessing about the core user outcome.
Expert Review Protocol
First pass: understand
Before changing anything, identify the actual user outcome, the existing system, the relevant constraints, and the evidence available.
Do not begin by choosing a visual treatment.
Second pass: compare
Ask:
- What is the simplest credible solution?
- What is the strongest alternative?
- What does the current solution cost?
- What behavior does each option teach the user?
- Which decision is easiest to reverse?
- Which failure would be most expensive?
Choose deliberately.
Third pass: stress
Do not review only the happy path.
Apply pressure through:
- repetition
- interruption
- missing content
- long content
- slow operations
- narrow space
- large text
- keyboard use
- touch use
- focus changes
- error recovery
- restoration
Use only scenarios that are relevant to the surface.
Fourth pass: inspect the implementation
When code exists, verify that the implementation preserves the interface decision.
Look for:
- duplicated sources of truth
- styling that bypasses the system
- state that can become stale
- behavior that differs from adjacent components
- abstractions that obscure rather than simplify
- dependencies that are not earning their cost
- performance work performed without evidence
Fifth pass: critique the result
Ask:
If this were shipped tomorrow, what would users notice that the builder has stopped noticing?
Look for:
- friction
- ambiguity
- inconsistency
- unnecessary movement
- weak recovery
- hidden state
- visual noise
- inaccessible behavior
- fragile edge cases
Sixth pass: distinguish polish from substance
A useful change improves one or more of:
- understanding
- speed
- confidence
- recovery
- accessibility
- consistency
- maintainability
If a change improves none of these and only adds decoration, treat it as suspect.
Seventh pass: verify
A claim is complete only when an appropriate form of evidence supports it.
Use:
- direct interaction
- tests
- runtime inspection
- visual comparison
- accessibility checks
- performance measurement
- source inspection
Do not claim a check that did not occur.
Completion standard
Stop when:
- the intended outcome is achieved
- important states are handled
- meaningful failure modes were considered
- the interface fits its surrounding system
- important claims are verified
- remaining imperfections are lower-value than the risk of further change
The goal is not maximal polish.
The goal is a result that is difficult to improve without changing the underlying decision.