4 ms·
>in the end, the users are wrong in the moment, but the real problem is that your app allows a behavior that has negative outcomes, and the proper fix isn't to
by serf 7y ago
>in the end, the users are wrong in the moment, but the real problem is that your app allows a behavior that has negative outcomes, and the proper fix isn't to educate people, but to make it impossible for people to click that delete button so easily, or maybe make the deletion recoverable.
this is the kind of thinking that kills apps for power-users, and leads to dark patterns.
You're not wrong, but I don't really like to think about how those kind of practices could be applied to social problems and government.
"We don't want X people doing Y, so let's subtly make it harder for X people to continue doing Y, without wholeheartedly admitting our intent." seems like a really slippery slope.
- benj111 7y agoThe GP isn't saying don't have the feature. They're saying don't have the delete button next to the save button, labelled ambiguously, and without a confirmation step.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago> this is the kind of thinking that kills apps for power-users, and leads to dark patterns. Not necessarily. Well-applied, this thinking is what gave you --no-preserve-root in rm command. You still can delete your entire drive, you just won't do it by accident anymore. I agree with your anxiety here though, some people do take this idea and turn it into "this feature is too dangerous; let's remove it for your own good", and nerf an otherwise useful tool. > "We don't want X people doing Y, so let's subtly make it harder for X people to continue doing Y, without wholeheartedly admitting our intent." seems like a really slippery slope. That this work is at this point a Nobel-winning insight (the "nudge"), so it's a matter of who's doing it and for what. It turns out that "free will" is a concept with little meaning at scale - large populations behave predictably.