A FIELD GUIDE TO DESIGN
From a visual language to a subtle response.
See differences. Understand tradeoffs. Make a choice.
Try “loading”, “grid”, or a term name.
QUERY THE SAME LIBRARY
Query these 87 entries using keywords and explicit constraints. Missing facts are listed, not guessed.
text: name, alias, or keyword; type: visual / layout / interaction / micro / principle / philosophy / anti; intent: exact intent ID; mode: select or audit.
must: keyboard, reduced_motion; avoid: modal, motion. Capabilities apply to these specimens and need verification in a product. facts supports measurable_progress, known_structure, and short_field as true or false; omitted means unknown.
Aliases and variants are not counted as extra entries. Anti-patterns are excluded in select mode and identified only in audit mode.
EDITORIAL LISTS / SEVEN CATEGORIES × TWO EDITIONS
Seat numbers are editorial positions, not scores, rankings, or popularity measurements. A list that is not filled is left as it is.
Positions marked “Editorially reconstructed seat” were filled by editorial judgement in this repository; every other seat comes from the list ledger in plan issue #1.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic foundation for visual styles: it helps tell frequently conflated visual languages apart, and reflects neither usage volume nor popularity.
6 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Visual directions this edition follows in 2026; its seats are not all filled, because verifiable adoption data is missing.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic foundation for layout and information architecture: chosen for structural differences, not ordered by how often each is used.
7 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Layout questions this edition follows in 2026, mostly around multipane and conversational products; positions without evidence are left open.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic foundation for interaction patterns: it covers common task shapes and implies no order of preference.
7 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Interaction questions this edition follows in 2026, mainly about people working with automated systems; its size follows the discussion that could be verified.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic foundation for microinteractions and feedback: it separates feedback mechanisms rather than grading how well they work.
6 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Feedback questions this edition follows in 2026; positions without dependable annual evidence are left open.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic foundation for principles and cognition, drawn from long-standing usability and cognition discussion rather than any ranking of effectiveness.
9 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Principle questions this edition follows in 2026, leaning toward explainability, trust, and perceivability.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic foundation for ideas and philosophies: these positions can hold at the same time, and none scores higher overall.
8 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Design ideas this edition follows in 2026; the overlap with the classic list means these positions are still being discussed, not that attention to them has grown.
10 entries · every seat filled
A classic list of anti-patterns, for recognition and audit only; nothing here is a practice to adopt.
6 entries · fewer than 10 seats; positions without verifiable evidence are left open
Anti-patterns this edition follows in 2026; its size follows verifiable public discussion and is not a measure of how often they occur.