Software Design
Follow the interruption through to its consequence
Imagine a fictional writing tool that reminds someone to give an untitled draft a name. This original interruption card records the proposed interaction before implementation. It is not a usability finding. The example asks whether the person can continue writing, understand the reminder and leave it without losing the current draft.
01
Describe the moment before the reminder appears
Start the card with the person’s current task: composing an untitled draft. Record the proposed trigger, such as leaving the title field empty when opening the draft list. State where the reminder would appear and whether it blocks access to that list. Keep the timing specific enough that a reviewer could reproduce the intended sequence. “Remind at a convenient time” is too vague to examine. Include the draft’s current state in the card, so later discussion does not accidentally confuse naming the draft with saving its text.
02
Give each response a plain consequence
Propose two responses: “Name draft” and “Continue without a title.” The first opens the title field; the second proceeds to the draft list with the untitled label retained. Record these consequences beside the proposed buttons. If a close control is included, explicitly decide whether it behaves like continuing or returns to the editor. A polite introduction cannot resolve that ambiguity on its own. Keep the draft text preserved in every proposed path and mark that preservation as a requirement to verify, rather than claiming the unfinished tool already does it.
03
Record what happens if the person returns later
Finish with the next encounter. Specify whether the reminder appears again immediately, on a later visit or only after another defined action. For this exercise, propose that dismissal lasts for the current session and record that as a design choice awaiting review. Add empty fields for the implemented version, observed result and any discrepancy. The completed card links the starting task, trigger, available responses, resulting state and repeat behaviour. A reviewer can then examine the full interruption instead of approving a friendly message whose consequences remain unspecified.