{ "_description": "Generated from data/ — edit the sources, not this file. The agent access guide explains the evidence boundary of every field.", "schemaVersion": "1.0.0", "kind": "list", "locale": "en", "id": "P-Y", "name": { "zh": "原则与认知机制 · 2026 关注", "en": "Principles & cognition · 2026 focus" }, "headline": { "zh": "2026 UX 原则趋势：九大值得关注的设计原则", "en": "2026 Trending UX Principles: Top 9 Design Principles in 2026" }, "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/lists/P-Y/", "self": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/lists/P-Y.json", "alternates": { "zh-CN": "https://designvocabulary.com/zh/lists/P-Y.json", "en": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/lists/P-Y.json" }, "site": { "catalogSchemaVersion": "0.1.0", "entries": 158, "index": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/lists/index.json", "query": "https://designvocabulary.com/api/query?lang=en", "guide": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/agents/", "llms": "https://designvocabulary.com/llms.txt" }, "provenance": { "selection": "editorial", "ordered": false, "disclaimer": "Seat numbers are editorial positions, not scores, rankings, or popularity measurements. A list that is not filled is left as it is.", "titleNote": "“Trending” and “Top” in the title are search conventions. This edition records the discussion it was following — not adoption, popularity, or any ranking.", "seatOrigins": { "issue-1-ledger": "The seat comes from the list ledger in plan issue #1.", "editorial-reconstruction": "The seat was filled by editorial judgement in this repository." }, "evidence": "An industry outlook expresses where practitioners are looking, not proof of effect; accessibility specifications set testable minimums, not the whole of design quality.", "nominalSize": 10, "seatCount": 9, "filled": false, "sibling": { "id": "P-C", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/lists/P-C/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/lists/P-C.json" } }, "seats": [ { "seat": 2, "entry": "visibility-of-system-status", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "When a system acts on its own, the load this principle carries grows noticeably.", "name": "Visibility of System Status", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/visibility-of-system-status/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/visibility-of-system-status.json" }, { "seat": 3, "entry": "consistency", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "In the annual context, natural-language entrances make it harder to guarantee that the same wording means the same thing.", "name": "Consistency and Standards", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/consistency/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/consistency.json" }, { "seat": 4, "entry": "error-prevention", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "In the annual context it corresponds to stopping an automatic action before it takes effect.", "name": "Error Prevention", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/error-prevention/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/error-prevention.json" }, { "seat": 5, "entry": "user-control", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "In the annual context it corresponds to a person being able to stop and undo what a system has already done.", "name": "User Control and Freedom", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/user-control/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/user-control.json" }, { "seat": 6, "entry": "contrast-legibility", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Adds something you can check numerically, and makes clear that low contrast is a measurable problem, not the name of a style.", "name": "Contrast and Legibility", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/contrast-legibility/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/contrast-legibility.json" }, { "seat": 7, "entry": "cognitive-load", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Adds a frame for where load comes from and which part design can reduce.", "name": "Cognitive Load", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/cognitive-load/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/cognitive-load.json" }, { "seat": 8, "entry": "trust-calibration", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Covers matching trust to actual reliability, and makes explicit that the goal is not to maximise trust.", "name": "Trust Calibration", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/trust-calibration/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/trust-calibration.json" }, { "seat": 9, "entry": "explainability", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Covers giving reasons and limits a person can check; this is not the same as making an interface recognisable.", "name": "Explainability", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/explainability/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/explainability.json" }, { "seat": 10, "entry": "perceivable-alternatives", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Covers providing equivalents per perceptual channel — more specific and more checkable than inclusive design as a whole.", "name": "Perceivable Alternatives", "type": "principle", "page": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/perceivable-alternatives/", "json": "https://designvocabulary.com/en/entries/perceivable-alternatives.json" } ], "list": { "id": "P-Y", "category": "principle", "edition": "2026-focus", "name": { "zh": "原则与认知机制 · 2026 关注", "en": "Principles & cognition · 2026 focus" }, "headline": { "zh": "2026 UX 原则趋势：九大值得关注的设计原则", "en": "2026 Trending UX Principles: Top 9 Design Principles in 2026" }, "note": "Principle questions this edition follows in 2026, leaning toward explainability, trust, and perceivability.", "keywords": [ "2026 UX trends", "trending UX principles 2026", "explainability", "trust calibration", "accessibility", "cognitive load", "AI design principles" ], "lead": "This edition records the principle questions this edition was following in 2026, concentrated in three places: whether a result can be checked, whether trust in a system matches its actual reliability, and whether information holds across perceptual channels.", "criteria": [ "A verifiable specification, industry outlook, or study discussed it around 2026.", "It lands on something checkable rather than a statement of values.", "Its difference from existing principles in the category is statable." ], "pairing": "Against the classic foundation edition, this one deals more with judging automatically produced results. An entry in both lists is an older principle carrying more weight in that context.", "evidence": "An industry outlook expresses where practitioners are looking, not proof of effect; accessibility specifications set testable minimums, not the whole of design quality.", "seats": [ { "seat": 2, "entry": "visibility-of-system-status", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "When a system acts on its own, the load this principle carries grows noticeably." }, { "seat": 3, "entry": "consistency", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "In the annual context, natural-language entrances make it harder to guarantee that the same wording means the same thing." }, { "seat": 4, "entry": "error-prevention", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "In the annual context it corresponds to stopping an automatic action before it takes effect." }, { "seat": 5, "entry": "user-control", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "In the annual context it corresponds to a person being able to stop and undo what a system has already done." }, { "seat": 6, "entry": "contrast-legibility", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Adds something you can check numerically, and makes clear that low contrast is a measurable problem, not the name of a style." }, { "seat": 7, "entry": "cognitive-load", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Adds a frame for where load comes from and which part design can reduce." }, { "seat": 8, "entry": "trust-calibration", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Covers matching trust to actual reliability, and makes explicit that the goal is not to maximise trust." }, { "seat": 9, "entry": "explainability", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Covers giving reasons and limits a person can check; this is not the same as making an interface recognisable." }, { "seat": 10, "entry": "perceivable-alternatives", "origin": "issue-1-ledger", "reason": "Covers providing equivalents per perceptual channel — more specific and more checkable than inclusive design as a whole." } ] } }