{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018309859154929577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.345864661654136, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What legal design is as opposed to could/should be

How come legal designers keep relying on design things that make change appear possible when we know that legal things are more reliable at making change actually possible? We argue for an understanding of what legal design is as opposed to could / should be in terms of actual change (sensed as changes of a world) and the appearance of change (sensed as changed in the world). We describe what things and background practices are and do, what design things and legal things are and do, and what designers and lawyers or judges are and tend to do. We conclude with a discussion of what legal designers could/should be doing and what will stand in their way.