The "Alternative" method in the audit
The process of the Muse Agent ends with the "Alternative" step: the agent suggests fixes without substituting the designer's decision. This is a principled stance: critique that dictates the only correct variant turns into a new product instead of improving the current one. A proper alternative removes the found barrier and leaves the team the choice between several correct solutions.
What makes an alternative honest
An honest alternative has four signs:
- Tied to the violation. The fix answers a concrete observation from the report, not the critic's taste.
- Rationale. It is clear which barrier is removed and for which users.
- Several variants. Where possible — variants with a different cost of implementation.
- The veto right stays with the team. The final choice stays with the designer and the product, not with the auditor.
Honest comparisons in the product
The same principle works in the product's marketing too. A comparison table is honest when it shows not only the advantages but also the limitations: for example, the Super Oracle page openly compares itself with a consultant ("three months, about $6,000, and a 200-page presentation") and with ChatGPT ("your text in someone else's cloud"), but right next to it states its own boundaries — it does not run a patent search and does not provide legal advice. A comparison that does not hide its own limitations convinces more strongly than one that praises.
An example from the audit practice
If the observation reads "the cancel-subscription button is hidden three levels deep in the menu", the honest alternatives can be different: move cancellation to the main settings screen, add a direct link in the emails, or allow cancellation through support in one request. Each removes the barrier in its own way; the audit ranks them by the severity of the problem and the cost, but does not appoint the only correct one. More about the structure of observations — in the article "WCAG heuristics".
Why this pays off for the business
The critic's dictation breeds the team's resistance and formal edits. An alternative with the right of choice breeds ownership of the decision: a team that chose the fix itself implements it faster and defends its quality. The honesty of the method is not only ethics but also the speed of implementing the audit results.
Questions and answers
Can Muse apply the fixes itself?
No: the output of the audit is concrete tasks, observations, evidence and priorities. Applying stays with the product team.
What if the problem has only one correct solution?
Then one alternative is described, but with the rationale — the team still checks it against the product context.
Is this different from a regular design code review?
Yes, the Muse audit ties every fix to evidence, priorities and the views of users.
What is an honest alternative?
A fix that is suggested without substituting the designer's decision: options, not directives.
Why must comparison tables be honest?
The user makes the decision on facts; a manipulative comparison destroys trust.
What does the demo show in such scenarios?
The demo uses synthetic data and sends nothing — this is stated directly.
How is the alternative formulated?
Together with the evidence of the problem, the priorities and the affected users.
Who chooses between the alternatives?
The designer and the team: the agent does not substitute the decision.
Does this apply to marketing texts?
Yes: texts are part of the audit input — URL, scenario, mockups, texts.
What stands in the way of honest alternatives?
The pressure of short-term metrics: timers and pseudo-discounts give a quick effect but destroy trust.