Pattern 11
Passage preview opens a full reader
Keep long Scripture readable without flooding the conversation.
Concrete takeaway
Choose among an excerpt card opening a full reader, complete inline expansion for manageable passages, and a dedicated reading surface for sustained reading.
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 · Passage preview | The passage supports a conversation | Excerpt boundaries and a full-text route are essential |
| B · Dedicated reader | The user wants sustained or complete reading | Moving surfaces requires conversation-position restoration |
| C · Complete inline passage | The complete passage remains manageable inline | Expansion and collapse must preserve the main scroll anchor |
The problem
A full chapter inside a small chat card can create nested scrolling. Aggressive truncation can hide what the user asked to read.
The pattern
Choose among an excerpt card opening a full reader, complete inline expansion for manageable passages, and a dedicated reading surface for sustained reading. Name the requested range, edition and visible range. Inline expansion uses the main conversation scroll rather than a nested text scroll; provide Collapse and retain an anchor when collapsing. A full reader can be a sheet on small screens or a side panel on wider screens, with an explicit return to the same conversation place. For cross-chapter ranges, preserve every boundary and continuation. If complete text is requested, provide a clearly labelled route to it rather than silently summarising. If edition rights or availability prevent full display, explain the limit and offer a permitted destination.
Compare the alternatives
Keep long Scripture readable without flooding the conversation.
A · Passage preview
Name exactly what is visible and what continues.
B · Dedicated reader
A sustained reading task gets enough space.
C · Complete inline passage
Suitable when the full text remains manageable in the main chat scroll.
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
Unmarked omissions; two competing scroll regions; a summary presented as the original passage; returning to the top of the chat.
Bible and faith considerations
Choose preview thresholds by viewport, text size and passage structure. There is no universal verse count that solves overflow.
What to validate
Test a short verse, long passage, complete chapter request and large text. Can readers recognise omissions, reach the whole text and return to the same conversation position? Test inline expansion and collapse, cross-chapter ranges, sheet and panel return, multiple passage cards, unavailable editions and the final verse at large text size.
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.
- AI Chatbots Design GuidelinesPublished UX guidance reviewed · General chatbot research, not validation of these Bible-app patterns.
- Progressive DisclosurePattern detail reviewed · The proposed reader transition is a domain adaptation.
- Scripture structure documentationRelevant structure and marker references reviewed · A format is not a complete model of app behaviour, annotations or formation.
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.
- Hospitality — Who can use this approach in their actual context, and what complete alternative exists for someone who cannot?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.