It's interesting to talk about the ethics of this sort of thing because the rabbit hole is very deep.
I think it was P.T. Barnum who can came up with the idea of making customers walk though the gift shop to exit his circus. I think of that every time I walk though an airport that does the same thing on entry or exit from its international flights area. That's an example of user interface design, isn't it?
And, what about the process of automobile sales? For nearly a century buyers have gone through the ritual of negotiating with a sales person who goes to the back room for 15 minutes at a time to "talk the manager" only to slurp on a coffee cup. That's a user interface as well.
I'm not defending the patterns in the presentation, but I don't see them as anything new. The medium is just different. Some businesses are just particularly shameless, and that's a problem.
As someone who spent 10 years selling cars, the salesman really is "talking to the manager". There is just incompetence and slow workers everywhere. Also, often times that manager has 5 salesmen in line wanting an offer to give their customers. Throw in folks who need the dealership to get financing, etc and it is just an inefficient bottleneck. Lots of companies have tried changing it, but it seems the old school method keeps being the best way to maximize profit.
The well-placed gift shop is user interface design. The lying car salesman is just dishonesty. I think they are different.
Taking it back to the subject medium: well placed ads or upsells are like the gift shop. They represent opportunities to make sales at the right time. Nothing wrong with that.
But, deliberately opting people into a product by subtly checking a box or otherwise in a manner that you are hoping they don't notice or understand is just dishonest. It aims to deceive people, not sell a product.
So, the proper anology is that the gift shop automatically debits your bank account as you walk through, while a worker slips an item in your bag. If you make it out of the airport without noticing, you're stuck with the bill.
the exaple which is in the presentation, and which I exprienced many times, is way more evil: you don't have an insurance selected by default, you select "no insurance" which is alfabetically sorted, so somewhere between latvia and norway, and when you get something wrong you get sent back to the page with everything unchanged _except_ for the insurance bit, which defaults to your country now.
Ryanair is pure evil, and yet I fly with it more often thn other companies because it's still way cheaper.
A good example is 3rd party marketing opt-out dark pattern. It is already legislated in a number of countries; and if a local business puts in an opt-out checkbox instead of opt-in ? Blam; this contact info is considered obtained without consent, please delete it and here is the invoice for your fine, thank you very much.
Another pattern that can be eliminated is hidden costs - i.e., in EU, you have to advertise the full cost, including the tax and "mandatory convenience fees"; so for some costs you can't hide them away.
And of course, the most effective tool is legally mandated rights for returns and cancellations - it gives actual teeth to angry customers, since if you succeed in tricking them, they can just cancel the deal [not neccessarily through a process that the company prescribes] and get full returns.
Is it a dark pattern when companies like Dwolla walk you through a multi-step signup procees involving a significant amount of info and an email verification, then ask for ultra-sensitive info like SSN only at the very end?
Clearly this is done to prevent some abandonment that would occur upon seeing the SSN on the first step of the process. Their idea is that you are already so invested by the end that you are more likely to give up that sensitive info. But, whether it is technically a "dark pattern" or not, it feels really, really slimy.
I like the one that Flickr (Yahoo) is now using where you can "log in with Facebook!" only to have it take you to a page where you still must have a Yahoo ID to continue.
Yahoo ID registration requires your DOB, full name, gender (of which only M/F are options), and postal code. Mobile phone / alt e-mail are the only non-required fields in the screenshots I linked.
Not allowed to down-vote, but this is using a very large brush to paint a ton of people the same color as bad apples.
Most marketing around you is perfectly ethical with no desire to trick you into buying things you don't want. Most sales people you meat are perfectly ethical. There are, of course, some idiots, but that is about as productive and narrow-minded as saying that since some small percentage of programmers are misogynist, all programmers are.
This. Most marketing is all about getting the click, the sign up or the sale, regardless whether what's being marketed is good or the best option for the possible customer. That's not something I'd avise to do to my mother.
There weren't many patterns presented, so here are a few of those and some more:
Some evil UX patterns are:
* Opt-in: Prepopulating option with more expensive or recurring payment. (example was a donation, but Amazon does this when not defaulting to free 5-7 day ground shipping after promising free shipping prior to putting it in cart! which is much worse since they are bait and switching)
* Opt-in, part 2: Making changes subtle changes can be evil. By switching around buttons, etc. after having it work a certain way a long time and not changing the interface enough, you trigger muscle memory to do the wrong thing. Amazon has exploited this as well with the (not) free shipping option.
* Difficult to quit/cancel: also mentioned in the OP's linked presentation. In addition to more steps or having to email, etc. they don't even give you a documented option, e.g. you have to email them so they will delete your account and they say that nowhere in the site.
* Glossing over legal: Small text or less readable font to hide details is evil.
* Hiding legal: putting legal disclaimers in an area of the site that is hard to get to is evil.
* Unnecessary login: making the user login because they might want to retain info about something, when really the site owner is getting more benefit (selling email address or lead info, mining it themselves, etc.).
* Asking for more than is needed for user to accomplish what they want: asking the user for more info than they need to provide in order to get lead info when they are not aware you will contact them is evil.
* Unintended use of data: Worked for a telecom that had page to get phone# to look up service availability and then they would use that for lead info.
* Easy to determine security questions: this is just stupid. Many are easy to find out and they do little more than make the uninformed user feel more secure. Examples: birthday, street you grew up on, etc. that can be learned even without social engineering.
* Passwords: one of the most archaic and stupid constructs ever. Passwords encourage people to use the same password across sites, so if one is compromised, they all are. An autogenerated passkey and a more secure way to reset it with a new one if your passkey was lost or stolen would beat passwords anyday. SSO only compounds this idiotic UX we can't get rid of. (And we put abusable/hackable cameras in every laptop instead of adding retinal scanners or thumbprint readers in every laptop, which could be viable alternatives.)
Passwords encourage people to use the same password across sites
I've heard this said about difficult passwords, but I think this is putting too fine a point on it. Passwords don't encourage anything on their own, except perhaps a consciousness of the basics of security. It's akin to saying that pizza encourages eating it for every meal. I don't think we've yet seen a gene that selfish.
Your password rant falls on it's ass immediately considering that we don't have any way to link your thumbprint to your identity for the remote peer.
Using a service like twitter as online identity helps to some degree with having fewer passwords except that then cracking a twitter account gives you access to everything.
> Amazon does this when not defaulting to free 5-7 day ground shipping after promising free shipping prior to putting it in cart
If you have the $79/year Amazon Prime subscription, then they _do_ default to the "free" 2-day shipping on eligible orders. I don't think they're trying to optimize the flow for occasional shoppers.
How about:
* Deliberately making terms and conditions so long and verbose that no-one has the will/time to read them and is more likely to simply check the "I have read the terms and conditions" checkbox without actually reading them.
No it's not ethical. When I see it as I'm checking out I CANCEL MY ORDER AND LEAVE! I'm not going to do business with a company that is trying to scam me.
I've started doing this whenever a company pulls a bait and switch (pet hate of mine). I got an email offer saying a site was $9.95 for 1 year, limited time only... ok sure, big savings and I had been thinking about signing up. Click through and get £9.95. Not cool.
Nice redesign!
It took me a while to find the actual patterns. Shouldn't the list of patterns be visible on the home page or at least accessible from the menu?
The worst I've encountered recently was Mastercard. They call thanking you and your family for using their service. They say as a thank you they give for free, card protection services, by accepting their thank you/free gift your opting in for a reoccurring service that will charge you next month. Its the devil's wording.
I find that fact impressive, not disconcerting. (Perhaps disconcerting about the evolution of the internet.)
It's not often you see a basically unchanged tech website over four years becoming more relevant to the HN community instead of less relevant.
I'm very disturbed. The only reason you've got job and work for a company is that the company expects you can help it to make (more) money.
The things you've mentioned do help boosting income, for some companies only in short-term, for other companies even in long-term.
If your personal ethics are not OK with it, there are only two ethical things you can do about it. Either you design a UX that is equally efficient in terms of KPI, but conforms to your ethics, or you quit the job.
Remaining employed, receiving your paycheck, but working against the company and waving ethics codes around or quietly sabotaging boss' decisions is NOT ethical.
I'm not sure if anyone else feels this way but I think this information would have been presented way better in a video or an article.
I was hard to connect the meaning between some of the videos and I feel like there was some dialog I was missing. I hope the trend of just releasing slide shows in lieu of articles or videos does not become a trend.
[+] [-] michaelfeathers|13 years ago|reply
I think it was P.T. Barnum who can came up with the idea of making customers walk though the gift shop to exit his circus. I think of that every time I walk though an airport that does the same thing on entry or exit from its international flights area. That's an example of user interface design, isn't it?
And, what about the process of automobile sales? For nearly a century buyers have gone through the ritual of negotiating with a sales person who goes to the back room for 15 minutes at a time to "talk the manager" only to slurp on a coffee cup. That's a user interface as well.
I'm not defending the patterns in the presentation, but I don't see them as anything new. The medium is just different. Some businesses are just particularly shameless, and that's a problem.
[+] [-] jhspaybar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|13 years ago|reply
Taking it back to the subject medium: well placed ads or upsells are like the gift shop. They represent opportunities to make sales at the right time. Nothing wrong with that.
But, deliberately opting people into a product by subtly checking a box or otherwise in a manner that you are hoping they don't notice or understand is just dishonest. It aims to deceive people, not sell a product.
So, the proper anology is that the gift shop automatically debits your bank account as you walk through, while a worker slips an item in your bag. If you make it out of the airport without noticing, you're stuck with the bill.
[+] [-] josscrowcroft|13 years ago|reply
Try to continue without insurance? Massive popup. "Last year X,000 people lost $$$... can you really take the risk?"
And two buttons. One big green one, "Continue with insurance" and one, tiny, non-button text link saying "No thanks, I'll take the risk."
That's one example. There are dozens.
[+] [-] riffraff|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterisP|13 years ago|reply
A good example is 3rd party marketing opt-out dark pattern. It is already legislated in a number of countries; and if a local business puts in an opt-out checkbox instead of opt-in ? Blam; this contact info is considered obtained without consent, please delete it and here is the invoice for your fine, thank you very much.
Another pattern that can be eliminated is hidden costs - i.e., in EU, you have to advertise the full cost, including the tax and "mandatory convenience fees"; so for some costs you can't hide them away.
And of course, the most effective tool is legally mandated rights for returns and cancellations - it gives actual teeth to angry customers, since if you succeed in tricking them, they can just cancel the deal [not neccessarily through a process that the company prescribes] and get full returns.
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|13 years ago|reply
Clearly this is done to prevent some abandonment that would occur upon seeing the SSN on the first step of the process. Their idea is that you are already so invested by the end that you are more likely to give up that sensitive info. But, whether it is technically a "dark pattern" or not, it feels really, really slimy.
[+] [-] seanp2k2|13 years ago|reply
I took some screenshots of the process: http://imgur.com/a/TPdYb
Yahoo ID registration requires your DOB, full name, gender (of which only M/F are options), and postal code. Mobile phone / alt e-mail are the only non-required fields in the screenshots I linked.
[+] [-] benburton|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
So, most marketing isn't ethical at all.
But that doesn't stop most marketing.
[+] [-] dizzystar|13 years ago|reply
Most marketing around you is perfectly ethical with no desire to trick you into buying things you don't want. Most sales people you meat are perfectly ethical. There are, of course, some idiots, but that is about as productive and narrow-minded as saying that since some small percentage of programmers are misogynist, all programmers are.
[+] [-] raverbashing|13 years ago|reply
Several are sleazy yes, but I wouldn't say it's most of them
[+] [-] Mahn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hakaaaaak|13 years ago|reply
Some evil UX patterns are:
* Opt-in: Prepopulating option with more expensive or recurring payment. (example was a donation, but Amazon does this when not defaulting to free 5-7 day ground shipping after promising free shipping prior to putting it in cart! which is much worse since they are bait and switching)
* Opt-in, part 2: Making changes subtle changes can be evil. By switching around buttons, etc. after having it work a certain way a long time and not changing the interface enough, you trigger muscle memory to do the wrong thing. Amazon has exploited this as well with the (not) free shipping option.
* Difficult to quit/cancel: also mentioned in the OP's linked presentation. In addition to more steps or having to email, etc. they don't even give you a documented option, e.g. you have to email them so they will delete your account and they say that nowhere in the site.
* Glossing over legal: Small text or less readable font to hide details is evil.
* Hiding legal: putting legal disclaimers in an area of the site that is hard to get to is evil.
* Unnecessary login: making the user login because they might want to retain info about something, when really the site owner is getting more benefit (selling email address or lead info, mining it themselves, etc.).
* Asking for more than is needed for user to accomplish what they want: asking the user for more info than they need to provide in order to get lead info when they are not aware you will contact them is evil.
* Unintended use of data: Worked for a telecom that had page to get phone# to look up service availability and then they would use that for lead info.
* Easy to determine security questions: this is just stupid. Many are easy to find out and they do little more than make the uninformed user feel more secure. Examples: birthday, street you grew up on, etc. that can be learned even without social engineering.
* Passwords: one of the most archaic and stupid constructs ever. Passwords encourage people to use the same password across sites, so if one is compromised, they all are. An autogenerated passkey and a more secure way to reset it with a new one if your passkey was lost or stolen would beat passwords anyday. SSO only compounds this idiotic UX we can't get rid of. (And we put abusable/hackable cameras in every laptop instead of adding retinal scanners or thumbprint readers in every laptop, which could be viable alternatives.)
[+] [-] rhizome|13 years ago|reply
I've heard this said about difficult passwords, but I think this is putting too fine a point on it. Passwords don't encourage anything on their own, except perhaps a consciousness of the basics of security. It's akin to saying that pizza encourages eating it for every meal. I don't think we've yet seen a gene that selfish.
[+] [-] richo|13 years ago|reply
Using a service like twitter as online identity helps to some degree with having fewer passwords except that then cracking a twitter account gives you access to everything.
[+] [-] cbhl|13 years ago|reply
If you have the $79/year Amazon Prime subscription, then they _do_ default to the "free" 2-day shipping on eligible orders. I don't think they're trying to optimize the flow for occasional shoppers.
[+] [-] Thrall|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greggman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ZoFreX|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Monkeyget|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrew_wc_brown|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanp2k2|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubbingalcohol|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] camus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sigzero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morpher|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] campuscodi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Foomandoonian|13 years ago|reply
(Also, the headline should be 'Dark Patterns: Are They Ethical?' not 'Is It Ethical'.)
[+] [-] sbisker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willfarrell|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|13 years ago|reply
(http://transition.fcc.gov/transaction/aol-tw/exparte/nationw...)
[+] [-] fridental|13 years ago|reply
The things you've mentioned do help boosting income, for some companies only in short-term, for other companies even in long-term.
If your personal ethics are not OK with it, there are only two ethical things you can do about it. Either you design a UX that is equally efficient in terms of KPI, but conforms to your ethics, or you quit the job.
Remaining employed, receiving your paycheck, but working against the company and waving ethics codes around or quietly sabotaging boss' decisions is NOT ethical.
[+] [-] emehrkay|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ninetax|13 years ago|reply
I was hard to connect the meaning between some of the videos and I feel like there was some dialog I was missing. I hope the trend of just releasing slide shows in lieu of articles or videos does not become a trend.
[+] [-] RougeFemme|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaddison|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonhacker|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willfarrell|13 years ago|reply