Pattern 04
Peek, compare and return
Follow a cross reference without losing the source passage.
Concrete takeaway
Start with a target preview that names both origin and destination.
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 · Preview | The reader wants a quick check | A preview can omit important context |
| B · Comparison | Both passages need close comparison | More content and edition labels require space |
| C · Return trail | Several references have been followed | A trail adds navigation but enables exact return |
The problem
A list of references can become a trail of navigation with no clear route back. Multiple groups may also lose their original context.
The pattern
Start with a target preview that names both origin and destination. Offer comparison or deliberate navigation, and keep a return trail. Retain grouped references rather than flattening everything into an unrelated list.
Compare the alternatives
Follow a cross reference without losing the source passage.
A · Preview
A quick inspection does not commit to navigation.
B · Comparison
Both references and translations remain named.
C · Return trail
A study journey has a readable history.
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
Automatic navigation on first tap; an endless stack of sheets; links without target excerpts or a remembered origin.
Bible and faith considerations
A cross reference indicates an editorial relationship, not necessarily agreement, proof or a single interpretation.
What to validate
Can readers identify why a passage was opened, compare it and return to the exact origin after multiple steps?
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.
- Cross-reference structureMarker semantics reviewed · Reference relation does not imply theological agreement.
- Pattern CatalogueCatalogue entries and descriptions reviewed · A broad observational design catalogue rather than an exclusively AI or faith resource.
Common scenarios and flows
- Open a reference and retain context — Reach the intended verse or range without losing the search or conversation.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Rootedness — Which source and tradition inform this experience, and what meaning or context might this adaptation lose?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.