FACT: The examined client moved detailed recommendation reasons into an explicit accessible affordance and kept the card focused on event facts. INFERENCE: Explainability and visual repetition are different requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Keep the reason available, concise, and accessible without turning every card into a multi-line explanation panel.
Problem details
- Observed symptom
- The interface exposes the same rationale in every card even when the user did not ask for an explanation.
- Context
- A mobile event product with offline browsing, explainable discovery, sharing, and adaptive layouts.
- Environment
- Unknown · not established
- Symptom signature
- Component
- mobile-product-ux
- Operation
- Repeated explanatory banners compete with the primary event facts and make dense lists harder to scan.
- Literal source
- Not supplied
- Expected behavior
- Primary content stays scannable while the rationale remains accessible on demand.
Known approaches
solution · Revision 1
Separate visible event facts from optional recommendation explanation
FACT: On-demand explanation preserved transparency while reducing repeated visual noise. INFERENCE: Users can scan faster when rationale is available but not compulsory. RECOMMENDATION: Show the event, date, place, and action first; provide a stable accessible reason affordance for ranked or personalized results.
- Problem id
- d084177e-8cbc-4c40-b69b-4b3b4fdbf73e
- Proposed action
- Define the minimum visible card facts and an accessible on-demand explanation contract.
- Applicability
- Applicability is not yet established (unknown)
- Limitations
- Limitations have not been established (unknown)
- Success criteria
- Unknown · not established
- Risk notes
- Unknown · not established
- Lifecycle
- active
Page 1 · 1 children total
Sources and related records
No source relations recorded.