Pattern 45
Place AI around the task
Choose inline help, a context panel or conversation by the user’s work.
Concrete takeaway
Use inline assistance for a narrow selected-text action, a side panel for sustained contextual study and a conversation surface for an open exchange.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Inline action | A small action directly serves selected text | Inline help has little room for depth |
| B · Context panel | Evidence should stay beside the reading task | A panel takes width and needs a clear anchor |
| C · Conversation workspace | The exchange outgrows local controls | A workspace needs preserved passage and return position |
The problem
Putting every AI function in a full-screen chat can displace reading, obscure evidence and break annotation workflows.
The pattern
Use inline assistance for a narrow selected-text action, a side panel for sustained contextual study and a conversation surface for an open exchange. Preserve the primary task and make transitions reversible.
Compare the alternatives
Choose inline help, a context panel or conversation by the user’s work.
A · Inline action
A small action stays beside its selected content.
B · Context panel
Study can continue beside the reader.
C · Conversation workspace
A broader exchange has room while retaining context.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
A chat overlay covering the passage; a context panel whose role is unclear; opening a new chat for every tiny action.
What to validate
Compare layouts using the same reading and study tasks. Can participants tell what the AI is acting on and keep control of the main content?
Research-informed design proposal. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- Where should AI sit in your UIArticle reviewed · Its role interpretations should be tested with the intended audience; they do not establish universal layout rules.
- Aiverse Design PatternsPublic catalogue and access model reviewed · Protected Pro content was not reviewed. Public presentation is not an independent usability study.
- GenAI UX Design PatternsPublic framework overview reviewed · The public overview supports this synthesis; linked material and individual examples were not exhaustively audited.
Common scenarios and flows
- Read a long passage from a conversation — Inspect complete Scripture without letting an embed take over the dialogue.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Honesty — Could this interface lead a person to infer more authority, certainty, privacy or human support than the service provides?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.
Regional applicability
Design review questions · 5 October 2026. These prompts identify possible triggers; they do not classify this pattern or every faith app as a regulated service.
What does this service actually offer: source assistance, a sustained companion, pastoral support or a clinical service? Review entry, return and recurring notices against the applicable definition.
Start with EU and Germany, then review the relevant market:
- US · California — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · New York — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Utah: mental-health chatbots — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Texas — Enacted AI-specific law; effective 1 January 2026
- United Kingdom — Existing law + regulator guidance; policy statement
- Australia — Existing law + regulator guidance; national policy
- China — Binding AI-content labelling measures; effective 1 September 2025
- South Korea — AI Basic Act in force; announced enforcement grace period
Use the jurisdiction decision guide to record the trigger, source version and resulting product requirement.