3 ms·

It's an attempt to trick the user into clicking the wrong button. Maybe not dark, since all that happens is it annoyingly opens an website, but nonetheless, it

It's an attempt to trick the user into clicking the wrong button. Maybe not dark, since all that happens is it annoyingly opens an website, but nonetheless, it is not pleasant or user friendly to intentionally deceive others into doing something they wish to avoid. I believe that practices that are labeled the dark patterns on websites often have no more impact than that. I'd call it 'user hostile'.

dchest 8y ago
No, it's a attempt to intentionally slow down user. I don't remember nag screens that open websites: it either tells you that you press the wrong button and re-randomizes the button order or quits the program. There are also versions that just have a timer that enable "Continue" button after a few seconds (e.g. https://kinzuakid.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/gsak-nag-screen.jpg https://kinzuakid.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/gsak-nag-scree...). It's very different from websites that trick you into clicking a button that leads you somewhere. It's a nag screen in a demo version that you can get rid of by purchasing the program. It intentionally nags/annoys users, but very far from dark or gray patterns. In fact, many of them only appear if you violate the license by using the program after the allowed period; being slightly less user friendly but still allowing users to use the program.
- code_duck 8y ago
  I do recall nag screens that open websites, so that's what I am referring to. I believe Winzip did this, as did other 2000 era software. It seems to me that this happens in many mobile applications in modern times, though I don't know as I don't use many. Since many screens in mobile applications are drawn from the Internet and serve the same purpose as a website, the distinction is not significant. Opening parts of the application that I don't intend to open in an attempt to force me to look at them is disorienting, distracting from work, and gives rise to emotions that I do not wish to experience. As far as your conclusions about this not being user hostile, or a gray or dark pattern, I disagree. We must be operating from different definitions of user hostility. I don't wish to participate in psychological warfare and regarding my use of a program. If they wish to cut off or restrict usage of it, they should simply do so. As far as things like timers or other shareware style restrictions, they seems legitimate to me, though obsolete. It strikes me as a different topic.

dchest 8y ago

No, it's a attempt to intentionally slow down user. I don't remember nag screens that open websites: it either tells you that you press the wrong button and re-randomizes the button order or quits the program. There are also versions that just have a timer that enable "Continue" button after a few seconds (e.g. https://kinzuakid.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/gsak-nag-screen.jpg https://kinzuakid.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/gsak-nag-scree...). It's very different from websites that trick you into clicking a button that leads you somewhere. It's a nag screen in a demo version that you can get rid of by purchasing the program. It intentionally nags/annoys users, but very far from dark or gray patterns. In fact, many of them only appear if you violate the license by using the program after the allowed period; being slightly less user friendly but still allowing users to use the program.

code_duck 8y ago
I do recall nag screens that open websites, so that's what I am referring to. I believe Winzip did this, as did other 2000 era software. It seems to me that this happens in many mobile applications in modern times, though I don't know as I don't use many. Since many screens in mobile applications are drawn from the Internet and serve the same purpose as a website, the distinction is not significant. Opening parts of the application that I don't intend to open in an attempt to force me to look at them is disorienting, distracting from work, and gives rise to emotions that I do not wish to experience. As far as your conclusions about this not being user hostile, or a gray or dark pattern, I disagree. We must be operating from different definitions of user hostility. I don't wish to participate in psychological warfare and regarding my use of a program. If they wish to cut off or restrict usage of it, they should simply do so. As far as things like timers or other shareware style restrictions, they seems legitimate to me, though obsolete. It strikes me as a different topic.