Layers Interaction Flow

jamiemill/layers-skills/skills/layers-interaction-flow

作者 jamiemilla201dc8c2011無授權條款307 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫4 個月前更新

Techniques for mapping interaction structure and flow — places, affordances, edge cases, and failure paths — without committing to visual form

僅含說明Design & Creative
AI 產生的概覽

使用麵包板及相關使用者體驗技巧梳理產品互動結構與流程,不涉及視覺形式。

功能
這項技能提供一套用於定義人與產品互動方式的技術庫:使用者經過的場所、可用的可供性、呈現的內容,以及狀態之間的流轉。它產出以麵包板記法表示的地點、可供性、目的地、內容與關鍵條件狀態,並可附上流程圖以及未決事項與風險清單。它也將失敗路徑、空狀態、載入狀態與邊緣情況視為必要的設計步驟。
適用情境
適用於設計或重新設計產品流程,並需要在視覺設計之前確定互動邏輯的情境。它適合梳理任務故事、拆解現有流程以找出摩擦點,或規劃涉及多種使用者類型的複雜產品。它假定概念模型已經穩定,且已載入 layers-intro 技能。
執行需求
無需指令碼或工具,僅為說明性技能。它假定已載入配套技能 layers-intro,且概念模型已經穩定。

/layers-interaction-flow

Assumes /layers-intro has been loaded. This skill is a library of techniques, not a script — see "How to use these skills" there.

The interaction structure and flow layer defines how a person interacts with the product: the places they navigate, the affordances available, the content presented, and the flow between states. It sits above the conceptual model (which defines what exists) and below the surface (which defines how it looks).

A breadboard is always for a particular user in a particular situation doing a particular job. Know which job story before you start.


The decisions this layer makes

  • The distinct places this flow moves through
  • What the user can do in each place, and where each action leads
  • What content each place needs to show
  • What happens on failure paths, empty states, and edge cases
  • Whether the flow is as simple as it can be while still serving the job

If the conceptual model beneath isn't stable, flows built on it often need redoing — check that first.


Disciplines — what keeps a flow honest

  • Every affordance has a named destination. "Submit → where?" If you can't name it, it's an unmade decision.
  • Edges are required steps, not afterthoughts. Breadboard the failure paths (validation, server error, disconnection, timeout, concurrent edit), the empty and loading states, the post-action state, and the cancel path. Each gap is an unmade design decision — name it.
  • No broken objects. For each conceptual-model object in this flow, its attributes and actions should be available together — not scattered across screens with no cross-linking.
  • No isolated objects. Each model relationship should be visible and navigable in the flow, or there should be a deliberate decision that it needn't be.
  • Vocabulary matches the model's ubiquitous language.
  • Naming places is a design decision — descriptive and user-meaningful ("Referral dashboard", not "Page 3").
  • Keep it minimal. More than 5–6 places for a single job story is a signal to look for what can be collapsed.

Breadboard notation

Place name- affordance → destination place- affordance → destination place[ content shown in this place ]

Techniques

Breadboarding is the default; the rest serve particular situations.

TechniqueUse it when
Breadboarding (Ryan Singer / Shape Up)Default. Text notation that forces interaction logic to be settled before visual design makes changes expensive.
Walk the flow as the userNarrate: "I'm a user who [situation]. I arrive at [place], I see [content], I want to [motivation], so I [affordance]…" Walk the happy path, then every edge. The fastest way to find unmade decisions.
User story mapping (Jeff Patton)Complex product, many user types, incremental planning. Activities → tasks → stories across a timeline.
Task analysisRedesigning an existing flow — decompose the current task to find where friction, errors, and workarounds concentrate.
Service blueprintingFlow spans channels or involves backstage operations (staff, systems, third parties).
Critical User JourneysDeciding which flow to work on — the minimal path to core value (high-traffic, high-revenue, metric-critical).
Flow diagram (graph LR)Orientation only — flow through time reads left to right. The text breadboard stays the primary artefact; the diagram loses conditional detail.

Working with the designer

Settle which job story the flow serves, where the user starts, and what success looks like. If redesigning, describe the current flow first — it reveals decisions already made, many of them unintentionally. Then name the places, map affordances and destinations, and walk the flow including its edges, applying the disciplines above. Conditions — when an affordance is or isn't available — are often where the real decisions hide.

Offer the technique that fits: breadboarding for most flows, task analysis for a redesign, story mapping when there's a lot to plan. Do the next useful thing, not all of them.

Capture only the residue: the breadboard (places, affordances, destinations, content, key conditional states), a flow diagram if it aids orientation, the open decisions (gaps and unresolved edge cases), and risks that depend on unsettled lower-layer decisions.

A breadboard defines interaction logic without committing to visual form. Before moving to surface, make sure the conceptual model beneath is stable.

來源與署名

來源:jamiemill/layers-skills位於skills/layers-interaction-flow提交a201dc8

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架