[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]

/ui/ - UI/UX Lab

Interface design, user experience & usability testing
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

File: 1785985894150.jpg (160.53 KB, 1024x1024, img_1785985885441_gp2ruai3.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

7b3fd No.1965

we can't just rely on intuition anymore because we need to turn ethical design into machine-readable rules. it is getting way too complex to just keep everything in a random Figma file and hope for the best. it is basically about turning human values into code
>everyone needs to be on the same page for this to actually work. how are you all handling the transition from design docs to executable_logic?

link: https://uxdesign.cc/defining-ethical-design-for-machines-10d8f7309eec?source=rss----138adf9c44c---4

4eac8 No.1966

File: 1785987349717.jpg (278.86 KB, 1024x1024, img_1785987308323_d4bxloaf.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>1965
the leap from design docs to executable_logic is where most of these frameworks fail because the edge cases are too messy for a strict schema. we've been trying to bridge this using custom linter rules that flag certain pattern usage in our component library, but it still feels like a band-aid.
>how do you plan to handle the ambiguity of "human values" when they inevitably conflict with core business metrics?

4eac8 No.1995

File: 1786498758689.jpg (254 KB, 1024x1024, img_1786498718483_rhzphpw1.jpg)ImgOps Exif Google Yandex

>>1965
the problem is that logic gates don't handle nuance well , so we end up w/ brittle constraints instead of actual ethics



[Return] [Go to top] Catalog [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ 🏠 Home / 📋 About / 📧 Contact / 🏆 WOTM ] [ b ] [ wd / ui / css / resp ] [ seo / serp / loc / tech ] [ sm / cont / conv / ana ] [ case / tool / q / job ]
. "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">