Pattern 33
Overlaps remain legible
Distinguish playback, selection, search and saved highlights.
Concrete takeaway
Use different visual and accessible cues for transient and saved states.
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 · Different states | Playback, selection and saved marks overlap | Colour alone cannot carry all meanings |
| B · Reference note | A note attaches to a reliably mapped reference | Edition-specific word marks still need separate handling |
| C · Original word selection | Exact wording has no reliable equivalent | Keep the original mark rather than transferring it silently |
The problem
Several states may highlight the same text. After a translation change, a saved word selection may have no reliable equivalent.
The pattern
Use different visual and accessible cues for transient and saved states. Carry reference-based notes through reliable reference mappings. Keep exact selections attached to their original edition when no word alignment exists.
Compare the alternatives
Distinguish playback, selection, search and saved highlights.
A · Different states
Visual roles are distinguishable beyond colour.
B · Reference note
A reliable passage anchor can remain visible.
C · Original word selection
No new wording is invented.
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
Everything represented by background colour; inventing a new selection in another edition; hiding the original annotation when mapping fails.
What to validate
Combine playback, search and a personal mark on one verse. Switch editions and check that every annotation remains explainable and recoverable.
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.
- Record your insights using NotesOfficial documentation reviewed · Documentation does not validate all proposed sync or overlap behaviour.
- EPUB Media OverlaysRelevant specification section reviewed · Not proof of a particular Bible app implementation.
- Understanding ReflowGuidance reviewed · Some content has defined exceptions; test the actual experience.
Common scenarios and flows
- Compare editions across screen sizes — Inspect wording and context while retaining edition identity.
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.