Aglet

Investigate zero-query discovery with first-use comparisons

An investigation should explain what a person can do before a query exists and whether the guidance changes with context. Replay first-use and returning paths, inspect available history or examples, and test one starting action without treating a click as proof that discovery helped.

Build a useful investigation brief

  1. Build the blank-state set

    Capture new, returning, signed-in, anonymous, and category-entry views with field focus, scope, examples, history, and actions. Record what data is actually available. Include a minimal blank control to identify which guidance changes the first action.

  2. Follow the first action

    Select an example or type a query and compare destination, filters, result type, and ability to return. Test whether recent or popular terms lead to a useful result and whether a person can replace the suggestion without losing control.

  3. Write the discovery brief

    State the context boundary, useful cue, unavailable evidence, and competing explanations for hesitation. Recommend one bounded content or interaction experiment with a pass condition. Keep privacy and personalization assumptions separate from observed behavior.

What to carry forward

The investigation is complete when blank-state variants and first actions are reproducible across selected contexts. Stop with one evidence-backed cue or an explicit case for minimal UI. Do not claim discovery success from a click that leads to an irrelevant result.

Technical background: W3C guidance.

Keep the decision with the work.

Use a Work Item in Aglet to record the problem, the evidence you have, and the next decision. Add an owner and priority, then keep updates in the discussion so the next person can follow the reasoning.

Create an account See the product workflow