UX artefacts live and die by legibility. Yet too often, we write them for ourselves — shorthand scribbles powered by mental context no one else has. In doing so, we trade alignment for ambiguity. We forget that every UX story is not just a task; it’s a trust signal.
Every artefact is a message to someone else. The clearer the relationships — between artefacts and between people — the more likely momentum and alignment will follow. This isn’t about perfection. It’s about writing with the reader in mind.
Ambiguity Breaks More Than the Flow
Ambiguous tickets don’t just slow work. They distort relationships. They create microfractures in collaboration that don’t show up in Jira, but ripple through retros and roadmaps.
Consider the case of a senior UX designer reflecting during a retro on a story she’d written:
“Add empty state for results page.”
That’s what she wrote. To her, it meant something empathetic and visual: a branded message with microcopy and a soft nudge toward exploration.
To Dev? It meant a grey box with “No results found.” Full stop.
To Product? It meant disappointment in execution.
Six Slack threads. Three calls. One QA bug. All caused by a single vague artefact. Nobody was wrong. But nobody was aligned.
One Ticket, Three Realities
Each role reads artefacts through a different lens:
- Designers interpret visual hierarchy, emotional tone, and intent.
- Developers scan for logic, feasibility, and component patterns.
- Product managers look for risk, clarity, and scope boundaries.
When we don’t write with those lenses in mind, we force every reader into a game of interpretive guesswork.
A real-world example: a UX story once read simply:
“Add checkbox for marketing consent.”
The designer interpreted it as a compliance-led UI change, complete with contextual GDPR copy and a supportive tooltip.
The developer read it as a one-line form addition.
The product manager panicked about conversion and legal exposure.
Three interpretations. One artefact. Zero alignment.
Designing for the Reader
Legibility isn’t about over-explaining. It’s about pre-empting the questions that drain momentum: “What does this mean?” “Do they want me to decide?” “Is this final or flexible?”
One designer solved this by adopting a simple habit: every ticket began with “Context:”
Context: Users can now save drafts. We need to show this without drawing attention.
Suggested: Timestamp label below title field.
Dev: Toast or inline both fine.
PM: Confirm tone if needed.
She didn’t write more. She wrote better. Each artefact was structured with empathy, anticipating the needs of different readers.
And when those questions vanished, the team flowed.
Conclusion: From Transaction to Translation
Small changes create lasting signals.
One junior BA rewrote a vague story that had sat untouched:
“Refine mobile nav.”
She reframed it as:
Problem: On mobile, users miss secondary links.
Goal: Improve discoverability.
Suggest: Expose ‘More‘ as dropdown or alternative pattern.
Dev: Check breakpoint logic compatibility.
The result? Immediate dev response: “Perfect. I know exactly what to do.”
UX artefacts are more than delivery instructions. They’re translation layers between intent and action. Between design thinking and engineering rhythm. Between the way we think and the way we work.
So next time you write a story, write it like someone else is reading it.
Because they are.
Relational Observations
Observations on Artefact Alignment
- Ambiguity invites interpretationWhen UX stories lack clarity, each role fills the gap differently — often with friction as the result
- One artefact, many lensesDesigners, developers & PMs don’t just read differently — they read for different things
- Legibility builds trustClear stories reduce rework and tension, signalling care for the reader’s context.
- Context cues guide collaborationIncluding intention and scope in the ticket prevents silent divergence across functions
- Small rewrites shift team dynamicsReader-first artefacts foster shared understanding without needing more process
