Transparency is sufficient only if the user can change the next action from it

What it is

The account runs three paragraphs. Whether that is enough does not depend on paragraph count. It depends on whether, after reading, the user can change the next step from “send as is” to “edit three places first” or “hand to a lawyer” — and change it on grounds. Transparency is sufficient only if the user can change the next action from it. If they cannot, it is not yet enough; if they already can, adding material is usually not “more enough,” it is a different problem.

This is a judgement rule, not a slogan that one ought to be transparent.

Why it happens

“Enough” is relative to a decision difference. The account has a chance of being enough only if a difference exists: some information can push a person from one path to another. If there is no difference — they can only press one control anyway — no account can be enough on this ruler; talk about other goals. The ruler aims at the ability to change an act, not at feeling respected, not at word count, not at whether a legal text is complete.

The change must be observable. Saying “I understand” while the control is still the original one means the account has not crossed the enough line. Conversely, if people have already changed the act and still ask for more internals, they are mostly asking for reassurance, not for enough.

Studying it

Add copy in steps; after each step record whether the next action changed and whether the change agrees with expert disposition. Find the inflection where further addition no longer changes the act. Independent variables: kind of material (changeable facts / model internals / legal disclaimer), order. Dependent variables: smallest material that first changes the act, extra reading after the inflection, wrong changes (pushed by unrelated material).

The inflection is this entry’s operational definition. An experiment with no inflection is only measuring satisfaction.

Where it stops holding

When the user lacks the power to change the act, this ruler fails; switch to an accountability or record standard. Experts sometimes pick the right next step without reading, so the account is already surplus for them — that does not mean it is enough for a novice. This entry is the enough-test. That the purpose is to serve the decision, and that leftover unactionable information is noise, are other ticks on the same ruler, not expanded here.

Applying it

• Accept “is the account enough” as an action test: pick a step before reading, pick a step after. No change when there should have been one — material is not enough. Change — stop piling detail.
• Add first the kind of material that can change the act (checkable facts, executable limits). Do not pad “enough” with internals and disclaimers.
• On an interface that can already change the act, put extra material in an appendix so it is not mistaken for “more enough.”
• Check: take ten real forks and compare choices before and after reading. Count how many people changed the act because of the account. Zero, and transparency is not enough on this ruler; already high and still adding pages, enough has been overdone.

Related

• Same group: L5.05.1 Excess technical detail does not produce understanding · L5.05.2 Transparency must serve the user's next decision · L5.05.3 Information that cannot be acted on is noise · L5.05.5 Excess detail crowds out attention needed for key information · L5.05.6 Transparency and usability are in tension; full disclosure makes the interface unusable · L5.05.7 Transparency does not necessarily produce trust; exposing complexity can lower it · L5.05.8 Different roles should receive different depths of explanation, not the same text
• Nearby: L5.02 Local and Global Explanations · L5.01 Types of Explainability · L5.08 Counterfactual Explanations
• Search terms: sufficiency of transparency · change the next action · decision difference