4 ms·

>I strongly disagree with it. Then how do you otherwise explain the article's claims that desire (as expressed by user actions) can and does change even over t

>I strongly disagree with it. Then how do you otherwise explain the article's claims that desire (as expressed by user actions) can and does change even over the short time of using a platform? Platforms which guide users through an experience (as UX designers aim to do) can then have some influence on the user. >(aka giving people what they want) How do you define this? The article says that the assumption that people approach dating or hookups with a rigid desire is wrong - so is "what they want" how they feel before they use the application? Why are changes in desire invalid? Are services based on discovery (shopping/advertising/social media/etc) immoral for not giving you exactly what you ask for? >By staying as neutral as possible, you let the end user make the decision on their own. But you're presupposing that neutrality is possible. That's exactly what the article argues against - a platform is an active influence on its users, even if that influence isn't deliberately designed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
malvosenior 7y ago
If you limit someone's selection, then yes they have no choice but to take the "best" option of what you've offered them. The question is are you limiting that selection because you're trying to help them find what they like and thus filtering out what you think they wouldn't like. Or are you limiting selection because you want them to like what you like so you strip away everything that you don't like. The first is fine (although can be achieved with varying degrees of success). The second I would consider immoral but at the very least it's bad UX. I think the best option is to offer suggestions based on what you think someone may like but also offer access to the raw data/all data so they can decide for themselves with 100% transparency. For a dating site example, imagine that someone puts in that they're only looking to match with people greater than 6 feet tall. That could be viewed as either discriminatory or personal preference. If the platform views it as personal preference then they go ahead and filter out all people under 6 feet tall. If they view it as discriminatory, they continue to show the user people under 6 feet in hopes that they'll "learn the error of their ways". My argument is that the platforms have no business doing the later.
- ivanbakel 7y ago
  Your example is meaningless because the article doesn't make any kind of argument for that situation. It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to use, or completely absent - but not that they should be present and ignored. This also wasn't the direction of your original objection against "data manipulation, user interface decisions, hiding of opinions". More generally, the article doesn't agree with your general idea that "what they like" is a well-defined concept, or that a platform is able to get a good idea of what it is. Giving a user the power to search for specific preferences doesn't mean that a platform will be able to return the best results for that user - just the results that have been searched for. What that means for the authors is that a preference search isn't necessary or meaningful to have.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    > It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to use, or completely absent - but not that they should be present and ignored. This is semantics. It's about intent. Does the platform intend to give the user what they want (whether they can or not is not part of my argument) or do they intend to give the user what they want the user to see based on politics. This can include taking away tools that would allow the user to look for particular preferences. I also strongly disagree with the article that people don't know what they want. I think they do, especially when it comes to mate selection.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

malvosenior 7y ago

If you limit someone's selection, then yes they have no choice but to take the "best" option of what you've offered them. The question is are you limiting that selection because you're trying to help them find what they like and thus filtering out what you think they wouldn't like. Or are you limiting selection because you want them to like what you like so you strip away everything that you don't like. The first is fine (although can be achieved with varying degrees of success). The second I would consider immoral but at the very least it's bad UX. I think the best option is to offer suggestions based on what you think someone may like but also offer access to the raw data/all data so they can decide for themselves with 100% transparency. For a dating site example, imagine that someone puts in that they're only looking to match with people greater than 6 feet tall. That could be viewed as either discriminatory or personal preference. If the platform views it as personal preference then they go ahead and filter out all people under 6 feet tall. If they view it as discriminatory, they continue to show the user people under 6 feet in hopes that they'll "learn the error of their ways". My argument is that the platforms have no business doing the later.

ivanbakel 7y ago
Your example is meaningless because the article doesn't make any kind of argument for that situation. It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to use, or completely absent - but not that they should be present and ignored. This also wasn't the direction of your original objection against "data manipulation, user interface decisions, hiding of opinions". More generally, the article doesn't agree with your general idea that "what they like" is a well-defined concept, or that a platform is able to get a good idea of what it is. Giving a user the power to search for specific preferences doesn't mean that a platform will be able to return the best results for that user - just the results that have been searched for. What that means for the authors is that a preference search isn't necessary or meaningful to have.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > It suggests that those filters should be more difficult to use, or completely absent - but not that they should be present and ignored. This is semantics. It's about intent. Does the platform intend to give the user what they want (whether they can or not is not part of my argument) or do they intend to give the user what they want the user to see based on politics. This can include taking away tools that would allow the user to look for particular preferences. I also strongly disagree with the article that people don't know what they want. I think they do, especially when it comes to mate selection.