S11 / reviewed variation / fictional teaching case
Treatment comparison
Which visual treatment best expresses the same agreed proposition for the intended audience?
What this page does
The same message and material can take different compositions: compare how hierarchy, image emphasis and reading order present the invitation.
Before
The reader has seen attractive directions but cannot isolate style differences from changes in message or content.
After
The reader can compare visual emphasis and ask which approach better serves the agreed brief.
How it tells the story
distinct layout alternatives compared in equivalent outer frames using the same message and source material. Decision clarity through a fair comparison; neither colour nor position supplies a recommendation.
Where it belongs
- Agreed brief
- Selection criteria
- Individual treatments
- Comparable alternatives
- Direction and implementation
Needs before it: Agree the proposition and selection criteria; show enough of each direction to make its rules understandable.
Prepares next: Choose or refine a direction, then check accessibility, real content and implementation.
If the options change the proposition as well as the styling, compare the strategic choices separately before deciding the visual direction.
What you need to supply
- An agreed brief and criteria for judging the treatments.
- The same message and source material presented through legible examples in comparable outer frames.
- Relevant accessibility and implementation constraints.
What each content slot contributes
| Slot | Contribution |
|---|---|
| title | Decision the two alternatives prepare |
| treatments | Equal side-by-side alternatives |
| treatment-1 | Complete first direction |
| option-1 | Neutral identifier, not a ranking |
| direction-1 | What distinguishes the first visual approach |
| mockup-1 | Editable visual demonstration of the common brief |
| web-1-navigation | Same fictional page navigation in both treatments |
| web-1-hero-title | Same primary proposition in both treatments |
| web-1-explanation | Same supporting explanation in both treatments |
| web-1-action | Same proposed reader action, displayed as a mockup rather than a live service |
| web-1-hero-image | Comparable hero illustration, not evidence of a delivered service |
| web-1-section-title | Same supporting proposition in both treatments |
| web-1-learning-image | Comparable learning scene |
| web-1-learning-caption | Caption explaining the learning scene |
| web-1-workplace-image | Comparable workplace scene |
| web-1-workplace-caption | Caption explaining the workplace scene |
| treatment-2 | Complete second direction |
| option-2 | Neutral identifier, not a ranking |
| direction-2 | What distinguishes the second visual approach |
| mockup-2 | Comparable editable demonstration using the same content |
| web-2-navigation | Same fictional page navigation in both treatments |
| web-2-hero-title | Same primary proposition in both treatments |
| web-2-explanation | Same supporting explanation in both treatments |
| web-2-action | Same proposed reader action, displayed as a mockup rather than a live service |
| web-2-hero-image | Comparable hero illustration, not evidence of a delivered service |
| web-2-section-title | Same supporting proposition in both treatments |
| web-2-learning-image | Comparable learning scene |
| web-2-learning-caption | Caption explaining the learning scene |
| web-2-workplace-image | Comparable workplace scene |
| web-2-workplace-caption | Caption explaining the workplace scene |
Keep these relationships
- Keep the agreed message, factual claims, supplied assets and proposed action equivalent.
- Give alternatives equivalent outer frames and readable views. Internal arrangement, image scale, grouping and reading order may differ.
- When comparing layouts, show genuinely different compositions. If only colour changes, label it a colour comparison.
- Label alternatives neutrally; do not imply before/after or ranked performance.
- Explain the recommendation through the intended audience and brief.
Changing the amount of content
Comparable alternatives may vary in number; this visual instance supports two. For three or four directions, use a readable grid or linked comparison passage and recheck comparable outer frames and legibility. Those instances are untested.
Rendered counts checked in this batch: 2. The count refers to stages, angles, experience views or alternatives; individual text slots remain separately mapped.
An alternative route
Use aligned criteria when the decision depends on accessibility, costs or capabilities that images alone cannot show. Supply supported assessments; the matrix sacrifices the immediate visual comparison.
Conditional alternative based on inspected layout contracts. Replacement into another real narrative has not been tested.
When this is the wrong choice
- Comparing strategies with different promises while pretending only style differs.
- A before/after proof claim or an effectiveness ranking without evidence.
How to swap in another scenario
A fictional neighbourhood learning club compares two website treatments using the same membership message and illustrations.
The split editorial layout places the invitation beside its main image, followed by two supporting image tiles. The image-led layout opens with a wide scene, centres the invitation beneath it and finishes with compact image-and-caption links. Both use the same copy, assets and action, so the viewer can judge how the composition changes emphasis and reading order.
Replace identities and subject matter while retaining the audience question, required evidence and mapped relationship. Change content counts only with a corresponding layout and reading-order check.
Fictional teaching material. Proposed activity, planning assumptions and conceptual illustrations are not evidence of delivery, demand or results. Supply authorised facts and preserve necessary qualifications for a real project.
Use with AI
Copy this prompt and add your audience, objective, material, brand and output format.
Semantic case JSON / Counts, alternatives and review status / Plain-text prompt
What was reviewed
Reviewed by Tessel on 13 October 2026: source arrangement and passage, independently authored fictional copy, slot mapping, qualifications and local HTML rendering. Five populated instances passed 120 surface/viewport checks. Page navigation, search and AI-prompt copying were checked on desktop and phone. This is an agent review, not evidence of audience effectiveness.
Static, editable HTML only. Native PowerPoint, animation, audience response and real project effectiveness are unverified. This is a named option in the main gallery. Its dedicated HTML preserves the reviewed arrangement.