---
id: "question-ui-ux-for-forced-engagement"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ How to Use Explainable AI Responsibly"]
tags: ["user-experience", "product-design"]
related: ["concept-checkbox-transparency", "quote-willful-blindness"]
resolutionPath: "A/B testing various friction-introducing UI patterns in enterprise AI tools to measure actual comprehension and override rates versus user frustration."
sources: ["adoption"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-adoption"
originDay: 9
articleStem: "hbr-edu-37-employees-not-questioning-ai"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/06/employees-arent-questioning-ai-advice-enough"
sourceTitle: "Employees Aren’t Questioning AI Advice Enough"
---
# How can UI/UX design force engagement without causing alert fatigue?

**Open question.** If explainability cannot be left to individual choice ([[quote-willful-blindness]]), software systems must be designed to *force* engagement and avoid [[concept-checkbox-transparency]]. The article leaves open **how to design these interfaces** — e.g., mandatory reading time, comprehension checks — without frustrating users or causing 'click-through' fatigue.

**Resolution path:** A/B testing various friction-introducing UI patterns in enterprise AI tools to measure actual comprehension and override rates versus user frustration.

**Related tension (enrichment):** XAI/HCI research warns that overly detailed explanations can overwhelm non-expert users, reduce trust, or induce miscalibrated confidence. A complementary hypothesis is that **better explanation design — simpler, targeted, task-aligned — could reduce avoidance** without relying solely on forced friction, and that friction should scale with decision stakes to avoid alert fatigue on routine tasks.