Aladdin’s Magic Lamp — English design review guide
Aladdin is a two-way collaboration platform for businesses, independent professionals, and local partners around the world. A member can post a need, offer a capability, start a project, or respond to someone else. The member’s location, the market where the work happens, the markets a provider serves, and each reader’s language are separate choices. Local and cross-market collaborations follow the same core workflow.
This guide is the English entry point to the nine full Chinese-language designs. It explains the proposals, points to the full decisions and acceptance criteria, and gives reviewers questions they can respond to. The partner site demonstrates design interactions with fictional opportunity cards. The full development plan distinguishes features exercised in isolated pilots from proposed work.
Where to start
| If you are reviewing | Read the full design | What to look for |
|---|---|---|
| Product direction and language | Product and technology design | Two-way participation, consent, localization, translation evidence, and the first market tests |
| Product requirements and delivery | Requirements and acceptance criteria | Company research, matching evidence, private workspaces, infrastructure, and measurable release gates |
| Platform roles, pricing and transactions | Global marketplace blueprint | Publishing categories, professional relationships, knowledge transactions, data boundaries, and staged releases |
| Current implementation and remaining work | Development plan | Verified pilot paths, device and network coverage, pending acceptance and rollout order |
| Map, filters and live opportunity feed | Discovery and WorldMonitor review | Market selection, typed layers, linked detail, deadlines, and reconnect behavior |
| Brand and interaction concepts | Brand and screen design | The identity, desktop and mobile examples, translation controls, and review status |
| Sources, adapters and software licensing | Open-source component assessment | Candidate use, isolation boundaries, licenses, and validation gaps |
| Procurement document work | Tender workbench design | Source-linked checks, private documents, analysis, review, and approved export |
| Local rules, evidence and services | Market knowledge and local services | Jurisdiction-specific rules, practitioner services, rights, review, and controlled delivery |
Publish or respond from any market
The publishing flow starts with an intent. A member can ask for goods or services, present capabilities, share a tender lead, propose a partnership, or use an eligible employment flow. The chosen intent determines the fields and available responses. A listing records a market, validity and enough context to respond. A buyer may also sell, a supplier may be looking for a partner, and a local adviser may both offer services and seek work. Product plans distinguish platform participation from market-specific rollout and verification.
Members discover opportunities by market, category, time, product chapter and search terms. Public notices retain their official provenance and are visually distinct from member posts. A user can cite an official notice when proposing a partnership. Following is one-way. A conversation starts after the other party accepts a connection with context. Profile and verification work, organisation roles, and employment access have their own staged design and safeguards.
Review question: Could someone in your market describe both what they need and what they offer? Which response or role would be missing in your first real use?
Map, research and source evidence
The discovery design connects the map, category feed and detail panel. The map indicates the market associated with a record. Official notices retain their publication, project or lot identifiers, scope, stage, deadline, and source link. Tender cancellation, replacement, award and expiry are distinct. A previously saved snapshot stays available to its authorised owner for comparison with the current source.
Company research starts with a capability, use case, target market and role. The workbench traces each match back to evidence. It separates a potential fit from evidence of actual demand. Search and original-source retrieval are bounded to approved sources and an explicit usage budget. Contact data, draft review, dispatch and reply handling are separate steps. A human decides whether and how to contact another party.
The development plan includes isolated browser and database checks for publishing, editing, withdrawal, reconnect, saved filters, official source freshness, evidence review, role boundaries and backup recovery. Source coverage varies by market and collection mode. The software assessment records which candidates have source-level evidence and which still need runtime or license checks.
Review question: When deciding whether to pursue an opportunity, which evidence, date, permission, or source failure would change your next action?
Language and the official original
Interface language and opportunity reading language are independent account preferences. The current shared pilot includes Chinese and English entry and discovery. Users can switch the displayed text of a member post or an eligible official notice in place and inspect its original. A verified Chinese brief has priority when it matches the current source evidence. Notice numbers, deadlines, stages, source links, and other structured facts stay attached to the official record. Expiry, withdrawal, and revisions invalidate translations of the previous version.
Machine editions are identified as such. Offline checks found terminology and obligation omissions, so more language pairs and industry-specific quality need review before broader use. The design keeps the source text accessible and separates sourced term references from machine output. The full language design covers regional formats, fallback, future right-to-left layouts, and extension to publishing, knowledge and operations.
Review question: What legal or technical phrase in your language must remain precise? Would it help to see a term reference, a side-by-side edition, or a verified human brief?
Tenders, local knowledge and controlled delivery
The infrastructure pilot covers evidence of project and lot status, closing times, mandatory meetings, amendments and roles for contractors, consultants, suppliers and service providers. The proposed tender workbench lets an authorised team work from its own permitted documents or a public notice. It ties analysis to document versions and source locations, then prepares an editable draft for human review and approval. The account and role design governs who may access or export that work.
The market knowledge design covers local entry rules, standards, duties, business registration, prices and labour norms. It also covers local professional services such as logistics, registrations, tax and customs. Source links and authorised contributions are distinct. The current controlled contribution flow includes text and selected document formats, independent review, named-account access, version replacement, revocation and recovery testing. Payment, wider material licensing, paid delivery, settlement and disputes have separate launch gates. Business roles and regulated services must be reviewed for the relevant market.
Review question: What would you need to trust a local contribution or tender analysis? Which role would verify it, and what should happen after a source is withdrawn or superseded?
What feedback helps the next release
- Name the document and section or the workflow you tried.
- Describe your market, role or intended use if that context matters to the suggestion.
- Explain the step you expected, what is missing and what outcome would make it usable.
- Point out a misleading example, an inaccessible control or an unclear distinction between pilot and planned work.
Use the feedback form on the partner site. You can leave a reply address if you would like the review team to contact you.