This publication proves the equivalence of an animated or non-animated conversational UI with Html 5 canvas to any UX design. The universality of the interactive voice interface is proven by the enumeration of the UX widgets and the proof of equivalence to interactive voice response with visual display. What: The proof of the equivalence of conversational UI with or without media to a visual interface based on mouse or keyboard or other interactions. How: An enumeration of widgets and other UI and equivalence in the conversion to conversational UI with media. Why: Accessability is natural in conversational UI, necessatating the conversion and equivalance. Conversational UI is hands-free and natural. Introduction UX design is a 10 billion dollar industry, there is thus the possibility of automation of atleast 30% of this development ​ (“Website” n.d.) ​ [1]. At AB we have developed a basket of tools and a portal called low-code-solutions for the automation of UX development. Since the primary UX development we do is conversational, we want to prove that any UX development is equivalent to interactive voice with a display, much like Alexa ECHO display. Synopsis UX JavaScript past and present JavaScript Initially only implemented client-side in we b browsers, JavaScript engines arenow embe dded in many other types of host software, i ncluding server-side inweb servers and data bases, and in non-web programs such as wor d processorsand PDF software, and in runti me environments that make JavaScript avail ablefor writing mobile and desktop applicati ons, including desktop widgets. Although there are strong outward similariti es between JavaScript and Java, including la nguage name, syntax, and respective standar d libraries, the twolanguages are distinct and differ greatly in design; JavaScript was influenced by programming languages such as Self and Sc heme. The result was a proliferation of comprehens ive frameworks and libraries, improved Java Script programming practices, and increased usage of JavaScriptoutside Web browsers, a s seen by the proliferation of Server-side JavaScript platforms. The terms Vanilla JavaScript and Vanilla JS refer to JavaScript not extended byany frame works or additional libraries. JavaScript supports much of the structured p rogramming syntax from C. Onepartial exce ption is scoping: JavaScript originally had o nly function scoping with var. A JavaScript engine is an interpreter that int erprets JavaScript source code and executes the script accordingly. A JavaScript Web server would typically ex pose host objects representing HTTPrequest and response objects, which a JavaScript program could then interrogate and manipulate to dynamically generate Web pages. Because JavaScript is the only language that the most popular browsers sharesupport for, it has become a target language for many fr ameworks in otherlanguages, even though JavaScript was never intended to be such a language. Because JavaScript runs in widely varying environments, an important part of testing and debugging is to test and verify th at the JavaScript works across multiple browsers. "JavaScript hijacking" is a type of CSRF att ack in which a <script> tag on an attacker's site exploits a page on the victim's site that returns private information such as JSON or JavaScript. This makes JavaScript a theoretically viable vector for a Trojan horse, although JavaScript Trojan horses are uncommon in p ractice. Late Night Software's JavaScript OSA is a freeware alternative to AppleScript for OS X. It is based on the Mozilla JavaScript 1.5 implementation, with the addition of a MacOS object for interaction w ith the operating system and third-party appl ications. Enyo JS is a framework to develop apps for all major platforms, from phones and tablets to PCs and TVs. WinJS provides a special Windows Library forJavaScript fun ctionality in Windows 8 that enables the development of Modern style applications in HTML5 and JavaScript. In addition to the native computer software, there are online JavaScript IDEs, debugging aids that are themselves written in JavaScript and built to run on theWeb.[] jQuery is a popular JavaScript library design ed to simplify DOM-oriented client-side HT ML scripting along with offering cross-brow ser compatibility becausevarious browsers re spond differently to certain vanilla JavaScrip t code. Js is a subset of JavaScript that can be run in any JavaScript engine or runfaster in an ahe ad-of-time compiling engine. Objective-J, a superset of JavaScript that co mpiles to standard JavaScript. Unlike handwritten JavaScript, Elm-generat ed JavaScript has zero runtimeexceptions, a time-traveling debugger, and enforced sema ntic versioning. As JavaScript has unusual limitations - such as no explicit integer type, only double-precision binary floating point - lang uages that compile to JavaScriptand do not t ake care to use the integer-converting shift a nd bitwise logicaloperators may have slightl y different behavior than in other environments. Java and JavaScript both first appeared in 19 95, but Java was developed by James Gosling of Sun Microsystems, and JavaScript by Brendan E ich of Netscape Communications. Definition of UX in JS The Definition Of User Experience Summary: "User experience" encompasses all aspects o f the end-user's interaction with the company, its services, a nd its products. The first requirement for an exemplary user experience is to meet the exactneeds of the c ustomer, without fuss or bother. True user experience goes far beyond giving customers what they say theywant, or provi ding checklist features. In order to achieve high-quality user experie nce in a company's offerings theremust be a seamless merging of the services of multiple disciplines, including engineering, marketing, graphical and indust rial design, and interface design. It's important to distinguish the total user ex perience from the user interface, even thoug h the UI is obviously an extremely important part of th e design. Even if the UI for finding a film is perfect, t he UX will be poor for a user whowants info rmation about a small independent release if the underlying d atabaseonly contains movies from the major studios. Again, this is very important, and again total user experience is an evenbroader concept ​ (“ The Definition of User Experience (UX)” n.d.) ​ .[2] Equivalence of UX Universality of the conversational UI interface. ​ (Keenan 1976; Janarthanam 2017; Batish 2018; Shevat 2017; Pearl 2016; Masood and Hashmi 2019) Much research on best practices of the design of conversational interfaces with or without conversational modeling is part of UI design psychology and user interfaces.(Janarthanam 2017, Shevat 2017, Hashmi 2019). The universality is proven in the equilalence of the two approaches in usability. A UX design can be proven equivalent to an interactive voice response system with visual output much like Alexa Echo with video. In the rest of the paper, we enumerate the widgets that form the elements of a UX design and prove the equivalence of each widget to a persistable interactive voice interface design with visual output. The user interface of a messenger of Facebook is an example of a UX design that is universal and is proven equivalent to every widget that a UX design contains. Enumeration of widgets Equivalence of each widget to a model of html 5 canvas and conversational UI. The web and UX accessibility proof. Given the existence of a text, image and UX accessibility in voice response systems, the chat-bot interface is yet another improvement in accessibility and proves the possibility of an exact equivalence of a chat-bot IVS interface with a UX design. Given the following widgets: Audio: Audio clips can be played on the canvas in either a Facebook messenger type of chat interface or the animated conversation and html 5 canvas interface. Given the existence of an audio Widget, UX.A, it is proven that an equivalent conversational Design CH, CH.canvas.A is equivalent to UX.A. Proof : The widget UX.A is equivalent to a html 5 widget as it plays the same content as an MP3 or any other format. Video: Video's can similarly be played in both the user interface types. The widget equivalence is defined as above for audio. Animation: An animation can be simulated using a widget. The widget equivalence is as defined above for audio. In the messenger interface and directly on the html5 canvas. Radio menu: The radio menu choices can be indicated on the messenger interface as clickable alternatives, alternatively it can be listed out in a conversation and the choice indicated in the conversation and stored to a self, AIML or JavaScript data structure. Given the existence of a radio menu UX.RM, for a conversational interface CH, let there exist a conversation C, so we have to prove the equivalence of UX.RM and CH.C, given that CH.C is persisted and also available for data mining. Proof: There exists an unfolding in natural language for the label and the choices of UX.RM, which can be written as a natural language sentence. The response would indicate the choice for the radio button. thus CH.C has two parts CH.C.Question and CH.C.Response, the response if converted to a data structure gives the same data structure as UX.RM. Nested dropdown menu The choices in a nested drop-down menu can be unfolded into an interactive text with numbered choices and used in an interactive messenger like the interface of using semantic maps can be mined from interactive voice systems. Proof as similar to radio button as described above. Text box Text box input is directly renderable as a response in IVS or messenger type interfaces. Proof is axiomatic Text area The text area is a larger text response, which like a text box is directly renderable. Proof is axiomatic Status bar: this can be indicated in both the interfaces using a variety of formats. Proof is axiomatic Buttons Buttons are directly addable to the messenger interface and replaced by yes/no or natural language responses in IVS systems. There exists UX.B a button with an action A, we have to prove that the same action is possible on a response CH.C.Response to CH.C.Question. The Question is a natural language framing of the action. Proof: The function that can be called by the Action UX.B.A() can also be aliased through the function semantic_map(CH.C.Response), proof for this is that a yes or no Boolean response for a question is equivalent to the executing of the action function or no action. Conclusion We have thus proven by enumeration of widgets and accessibility arguments that a conversational interface is equivalent to any UX design. The chat-bot is more pertinent to UX as it represents a mascot and serves as an interactive channel for an organizations PR. Chat-bots can be extended to do more than just UX, they can even serve as RPA bots, helping in reducing the monotony of most tasks. Future work would be the description of the automation of the conversion of UX requirements to automated shell scripting and training of conversational.