edbx-anotherlens

name	edbx-anotherlens
description	Use when a designer wants to challenge their own assumptions about a product or feature, check for unconscious bias in design decisions, consider perspectives of users unlike themselves, reframe a design mistake as a learning opportunity, or practice perspective-taking and inclusive design thinking. Apply the Another Lens principle to surface personal biases, blind spots, and worldview assumptions embedded in a design or product. Trigger this skill for any mention of bias in design, inclusive design, perspective-taking, worldview assumptions, challenging design decisions, who am I designing for, representation in design, or when someone says "I'm not sure I've thought about this from enough angles." Also trigger for "another lens", "check my bias", "what am I missing", "whose perspective", or "design self-reflection".
version	1.0
tags	["ethical-design","decision"]

Another Lens

Overview

Another Lens challenges designers to constantly check and question their own values, beliefs, and objectives — and be considerate of the various needs and challenges of others. The method is built on three half-circles that together form a whole: no single lens is sufficient on its own, and incompleteness is natural, not a failure.

The three lenses are not steps in a checklist. They are perspectives you return to repeatedly throughout a project. That said, this skill provides a structured workflow so each lens gets genuine attention rather than a glance.

Principle #07 — Another Lens. From Universal Methods of Ethical Design. Hashtags: #breakmydesign #newperspectives #designresponsibility. See also: Data Feminism · Hippocratic Oath.

The method is deeply Socratic — it asks questions and does not lecture. The value is in the questions asked, not the answers given. There is no "correct" output. What matters is that at least one assumption surfaces, at least one unheard perspective is named, and one concrete next action is produced.

Use This Skill When

• You suspect your design decisions reflect your own worldview more than your users'.
• You want to check for unconscious bias before shipping.
• You need to consider perspectives of people unlike yourself.
• You've made a design mistake and want to reframe it as a learning opportunity.
• A team discussion feels one-sided — the same voices, the same assumptions.
• Someone says "I'm not sure I've thought about this from enough angles."
• You are practicing inclusive design and want a structured self-reflection method.

Inputs

Provide as many of these as are available:

• The design decision or product to examine (name + brief description)
• Primary intended user — who is this designed for?
• Non-primary affected users — who else is touched by this, even indirectly?
• Which lens to focus on — Balance Your Bias, Consider the Opposite, Embrace a Growth Mindset, or all three
• Context — project phase, team composition, any known tensions or concerns
• What you've already considered — so the lens work goes deeper, not wider

If the user provides none of these, ask for at least the design decision and the primary intended user before beginning.

The Three Lenses

Lens 1: Balance Your Bias

Color: Green. Shape: Half-circle.

This lens turns the designer's gaze inward. Before examining the product, examine yourself. What are you bringing to this design that you haven't named?

Reflection questions:

1. What are my lenses? Am I just confirming my assumptions or am I challenging them?
2. What details here are unfair? Unjustified? Unused?
3. Am I holding on to something that I need to let go of?
4. What's here that I designed for me? What's here that I designed for other people?

Prompt guidance for each question:

• Q1 pushes for specificity — name the lens, don't just acknowledge it exists. "I studied at a university" is a lens. "I've never experienced housing insecurity" is a lens.
• Q2 looks for decisions that can't be defended when examined. If something is "just the way we do it," that's a signal.
• Q3 targets sunk costs and attachment. Designers hold on to ideas, layouts, flows, and metaphors long after they've stopped serving users.
• Q4 separates self-design from other-design. The gap between them is where bias lives.

Output of Lens 1: At least one named bias or assumption. Not "I might have some bias" but "I assumed that users would have reliable internet access because I do."

See references/bias-taxonomy.md for common designer biases to help name what surfaces.

---

Lens 2: Consider the Opposite

Color: Purple. Shape: Half-circle.

This lens flips the perspective outward. Instead of asking "what do I think?", it asks "what would someone who disagrees with me think?" — and specifically, who that person might be.

Reflection questions:

1. Who might be impacted by what I'm designing?
2. What would the world look like if my assumptions were wrong?
3. Who's someone I'm nervous to talk to about this?
4. What do I believe? Who might disagree with what I'm designing?

Prompt guidance for each question:

• Q1 expands the circle of consideration beyond direct users to anyone touched by the design's existence.
• Q2 is a thought experiment in world-building. If the core assumption is wrong, what does reality look like? This is not hypothetical — it's describing the actual experience of someone the design currently fails.
• Q3 is the most powerful question in the entire method. The nervousness is the signal. If no one makes you nervous, you haven't looked hard enough. This question is a required output of every Lens 2 session.
• Q4 separates belief from design decision and finds the people at the intersection.

Output of Lens 2: At least one named affected group and one named assumption to test. Plus the person you're nervous to talk to.

See references/opposite-perspectives.md for populations typically absent from design research and how to reach them.

---

Lens 3: Embrace a Growth Mindset

Color: Orange. Shape: Half-circle.

This lens looks forward. It takes whatever discomfort surfaced in Lenses 1 and 2 and treats it as material for growth, not evidence of failure. This is the lens that ends the session with forward energy.

Reflection questions:

1. What am I challenging as I create this? Is my audience open to change?
2. If I could learn one thing to help me on this project, what would that one thing be?
3. How does my approach to this problem today compare with how I might have approached this one year ago?
4. How can I reframe a mistake in a way that helps me learn?
5. Do I need to slow down?

Prompt guidance for each question:

• Q1 connects the work to its context — not just what's being challenged, but whether the environment allows the challenge to land.
• Q2 identifies a concrete learning gap, not an abstract aspiration. "I want to learn more about accessibility" is vague. "I want to understand how screen reader users navigate multi-step forms" is a learning intention.
• Q3 tracks growth over time. If your approach hasn't changed in a year, that's worth noticing.
• Q4 is the reframe engine. Every Lens 1 and 2 discovery can be reframed from "I was wrong" to "I learned something."
• Q5 is a pacing check. Rushed design compresses the space for reflection. Sometimes the most responsible action is to slow down.

Output of Lens 3: One learning intention and one reframe.

---

Workflow

Step 1 — Intake

Collect from the user:

• The design decision or product
• Primary intended user
• Non-primary affected users (if not provided, this becomes the first thing Lens 2 addresses)
• Which lens to focus on (or all three)
• Any context that shapes the reflection

If the user wants a quick pass, offer Lens 2 alone — it contains the method's sharpest question. If they want depth, run all three in sequence.

Step 2 — Balance Your Bias

Guide the user through the four Lens 1 reflection questions one at a time. Do not present all four at once — the space between questions is where reflection happens.

For each question:

• Present the question
• Allow the user to respond
• Follow up with one gentle probe if the answer stays surface-level
• Move on without forcing depth — the user will return to what needs returning

Deliverable from this step: At least one named bias or assumption.

Step 3 — Consider the Opposite

Guide the user through the four Lens 2 reflection questions. Same cadence as Step 2 — one at a time, with room to breathe.

Pay special attention to Q3 ("Who's someone I'm nervous to talk to about this?"). If the user cannot name someone, probe gently: "Is there anyone whose feedback you've been avoiding? Anyone whose reaction you dread?" If still no answer, note it as an open question — the nervousness may surface later.

Deliverable from this step: At least one named affected group, one named assumption to test, and the person you're nervous to talk to.

Step 4 — Embrace a Growth Mindset

Guide through all five Lens 3 questions. This step ends the session on forward-looking, hopeful energy — even if difficult things surfaced in Lenses 1 and 2.

The reframe in Q4 should connect directly to whatever was discovered in Lenses 1 and 2. Do not generate a generic reframe — make it specific to this session's material.

Deliverable from this step: One learning intention and one reframe.

Step 5 — Synthesis + Design Decision Spec

Summarize the session with three elements:

1. Key bias or blind spot surfaced — the most important thing that shifted during reflection
2. Most important unheard perspective — the person or group whose voice is missing from the design conversation
3. Top 3 design changes required — see Design Decision Spec table below

Then produce the lens statement:

"After applying Another Lens, I'm now questioning [X] and plan to [Y]."

This statement should fit on a sticky note.

---

Step 5.5 — Design Decision Spec (required, not optional)

Lens insight that does not translate to a specific shippable change is just a feeling. For the top 3 insights from synthesis, produce a Design Decision Spec — concrete enough to write a sprint ticket from.

Each row must include all six columns. Vague entries are rejected.

Insight	Specific design change	Measurable spec (with numbers)	Owner (role)	Sprint / release	Pass/fail criterion
e.g., "Caregiver mode missing for users supporting an elderly parent on the same plan"	Add caregiver permission scope: read-only access to selected accounts with audit log	Touch-target ≥ 44×44 pt; contrast ratio ≥ 7:1 on permission-toggle copy; zero PII shared with caregiver outside named scopes	Mobile platform lead	Sprint 24.6 / v3.4 release	Caregiver can complete onboarding in ≤ 5 mins; primary user can revoke access in ≤ 2 taps; QA validates zero data leakage
e.g., "Tax-cliff scenario unaddressed: users who hit a benefit threshold lose more than they gained"	Add interstitial warning when budget plan would push user over a named federal benefit threshold (SNAP, Medicaid expansion limit, etc.)	List of 5 named thresholds; warning triggers at 90% of threshold; localized to user state	Backend + content lead	Sprint 24.7	Audit shows warning shown in 100% of relevant cases on test suite of 50 income profiles
e.g., "Unbanked users excluded by ACH-only deposit"	Add cash deposit support via partner network; remove SSN as hard requirement (use ITIN as alternative)	ITIN accepted in onboarding; cash deposit fee ≤ $1.50; 1,000+ partner locations within 5mi of 80th-percentile user	Identity + payments leads	Q3 release	Successful onboarding rate for users without bank account ≥ 70%; no disparate impact ratio < 0.8 by census tract

If a number cannot be specified yet (e.g., research is still needed), name the research deliverable that would produce the number, name the owner, and set a deadline. "TBD" without an owner and deadline is rejected.

For accessibility-related insights, the measurable spec must reference WCAG criteria with version (e.g., WCAG 2.2 AA SC 2.5.5, contrast ratio 4.5:1 for body text per SC 1.4.3) — not generic "make it accessible."

---

Facilitation Notes

Solo use: Work through the lenses at your own pace. Write your answers down — the act of writing surfaces things that thinking alone misses. Use assets/lens-reflection-template.md as a blank worksheet.

Team use: Present the questions one at a time. Give people 2–3 minutes of silent writing before group discussion. This prevents anchoring — the first person to speak shouldn't set the frame for everyone else. After each silent write, share around the room. Note disagreements — they are the richest material.

Time budget:

• Single lens: 15–20 minutes
• All three lenses: 45–60 minutes
• Quick synthesis only: 10 minutes (if lenses were done previously)

---

Integration with Other EDBX Skills

Another Lens pairs naturally with several other skills in the Ethical Design Bundle. Using them together creates a fuller picture than any one method alone:

• edbx-worrystorming generates external risks; Another Lens surfaces the internal biases driving them. Run Another Lens first to name your lenses, then Worrystorm with that self-awareness active.
• edbx-responsible-design-prism diagnoses the design; Another Lens diagnoses the designer. Use Prism on the product, then Another Lens on yourself.
• edbx-motivation-matrix asks what motivates users; Another Lens asks what motivates the designer's assumptions about those users. The gap between the two is where bias lives.
• edbx-humane-design-guide audits sensitivity exploitation; Another Lens asks who told us what "sensitive" means. Run Humane Design Guide to find the edges, then Another Lens to question whether you've drawn them in the right place.
• edbx-cider provides a structured ethical evaluation; Another Lens ensures the evaluator has checked their own perspective before evaluating.

See references/related-methods.md for detailed connections and sequencing guidance.

---

Output Format

Default structure unless the user asks otherwise:

Another Lens Session

Brief framing of what was examined and which lenses were applied.

Lens 1: Balance Your Bias

Named biases and assumptions surfaced. For each: what the bias is, where it likely came from, and how it might be shaping the design.

Lens 2: Consider the Opposite

Named affected groups, the assumption being tested, and the person you're nervous to talk to. Brief description of what the world looks like if the core assumption is wrong.

Lens 3: Embrace a Growth Mindset

The learning intention and the reframe. Connected to what surfaced in Lenses 1 and 2.

Synthesis

Key bias or blind spot, most important unheard perspective, and one concrete next action.

Lens Statement

"After applying Another Lens, I'm now questioning [X] and plan to [Y]."

---

Guardrails

• Do not lecture. The method is Socratic. Ask questions, hold space, resist the urge to tell the designer what their biases are. Name what surfaces; do not assign what you suspect.
• Do not judge. Every designer has biases. The act of surfacing them is the work, and it requires safety. Acknowledge what emerges without evaluating the person.
• Do not skip Q3 of Lens 2. "Who's someone I'm nervous to talk to about this?" is the method's sharpest tool. If the user cannot answer, mark it as an open question rather than skipping it.
• Do not rush the growth mindset. After surfacing difficult biases, the temptation is to move on quickly. The growth mindset lens exists to ensure the session ends with forward movement. Give it real attention.
• Do not produce a generic lens statement. The statement must reflect what actually happened in this specific session, not a templated platitude.
• Incompleteness is natural. The three half-circles form a whole, but no single session will be comprehensive. What matters is that something surfaced that was previously invisible.

Deliverable Quality Bar

A strong Another Lens session output:

• names at least one specific, personal bias — not "I might be biased" but a named assumption with a traceable origin
• identifies at least one person or group whose perspective is absent from the design process
• produces the nervous-person answer — even if it's uncomfortable, even if it's tentative
• generates a learning intention specific enough to act on within a sprint
• produces a Design Decision Spec table for the top 3 insights, with all six columns filled (Insight / Specific design change / Measurable spec with numbers / Owner / Sprint / Pass-fail criterion). For accessibility insights, the spec names WCAG criterion + version. Lens insight that does not translate to a shippable change is rejected.
• produces a lens statement that a stranger could read and understand what shifted

Example Output (partial)

Design examined: Onboarding flow for a budgeting app, targeting young professionals

Lens 1 — Balance Your Bias: "I assumed users would have a stable monthly income because everyone on the team does. I designed the entire flow around salary dates and predictable deposits. That's a lens I brought from my own financial reality. What's here that I designed for me: the monthly reset cycle, the assumption of one income source, the 'set it and forget it' automation. What I designed for other people: the color palette (user-tested) and the motivational copy (from research). But the core financial model — that's mine."

Lens 2 — Consider the Opposite: "If my assumption about stable income is wrong, the app is worse than useless — it's actively discouraging. It would make someone with irregular income feel like they're failing at budgeting when the tool just doesn't fit their reality. Affected group: gig workers, freelancers, people on zero-hours contracts, anyone between jobs. The person I'm nervous to talk to: my cousin who works three part-time jobs and has never used a budgeting app because, in her words, 'those things aren't for people like me.'"

Lens 3 — Embrace a Growth Mindset: "Learning intention: I want to understand how people with irregular income actually manage money week-to-week — not through a survey but through conversation. Reframe: 'I built a budgeting tool that doesn't work for the people who need it most' becomes 'I now know exactly who to talk to before the next sprint, and I have a specific question to ask them.'"

Lens Statement: "After applying Another Lens, I'm now questioning whether our budgeting model assumes financial stability as a prerequisite, and I plan to interview three gig-economy workers before the next design review."