4 ms·

Design is manipulating people into doing what you want, I don't see how you can get away from that. A designer must make choices on what they want to user to se

Design is manipulating people into doing what you want, I don't see how you can get away from that. A designer must make choices on what they want to user to see and do, that's what a default is. Perhaps you're thinking of stuff like r/assholedesign?

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Must it be about manipulating people? Can't it be about bringing utility?
- ovao 5y ago
  At a high level, there’s good utility in guiding users down the path of a curated experience when the designers know the weak points of the app, or where some given tool has much more general utility than another (in which case they might hide the other tool under a context menu or something). It’s not necessarily the case that designers guide users down paths that solely benefit the designer, and I think that approach tends to be seen by most as “bad design”. In fact, it might even be bad design by definition.
- Erdromian 5y ago
  You can frame it any way you want, but you are manipulating them TO bring utility. You are making a choice, on their behalf, that influences how they experience something without their knowledge or explicit consent. Just because you might intend them only the best, doesn't change that it is a form of unseen manipulation.
- cercatrova 5y ago
  What you describe as utility is manipulating people, in a sense. You won't design a push door with handles implying it be pulled instead, so in a way, you're manipulating a user's action to push the door. I think you're assuming that manipulating people is used pejoratively, when I'm using it to mean "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner," rather than "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."
- Bjartr 5y ago
  When someone sits down to use an app, the app will have higher utility if it makes whatever task they're aiming to do, easier to do. When designing an app's UI, making something easy for users is a matter of understanding what their expectations are and matching what they look for by default when they try to do a thing in your app with what you show them in the UI. That the thing they look for is the thing you show them is both the manipulation and the thing that raises the utility.
pessimizer 5y ago
A "nudge" is synonymous with a "dark pattern."
- Bjartr 5y ago
  Not really. Dark patterns are a subset of nudges that push a user towards doing something they don't actually want. Say you have a 'signup or continue as guest' dialog with a "signup" button and a "later" button that appears when they try to use your app. If a user is seeing it, it's because they want to use your app. Highlighting one of the buttons is a common way of indicating "this is the thing to click to proceed". Highlighting "later" is a user-positive nudge, since it nudges those who are on autopilot, trying to use your app, to get to using your app. Highlighting "signup" is a user-negative nudge, and therefore dark pattern, because it gets in the way of the user's goal, use your app, purely for the sake of your signup rate, since it's optional.
  - mrob 5y ago
    >If a user is seeing it, it's because they want to use your app. It could be because they want to try your app. It implies nothing about long-term goals. >Highlighting "later" is a user-positive nudge The label "later" is itself a dark pattern. It's forcing a user who only wants to try the app to lie, which exploits the principle of consistency (as documented in Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion") to manipulate them into continuing to use the app.
    - Bjartr 5y ago
      > It could be because they want to try your app. It implies nothing about long-term goals. How does "use" imply long term? Is trying an app not at attempt to make use of it? > It's forcing a user who only wants to try the app to lie I didn't even notice that as I wrote it, but you're absolutely right. "skip", "continue", or even "not now" would be more neutral. This stuff really gets in your head without you realizing it when its so pervasive.
bo1024 5y ago
> Design is manipulating people into doing what you want I completely disagree. What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what I think the user wants. I present them with information and choices, they tell me what to do. There is never a step where I hold any opinion over what the user should do. Only steps where I help them understand the consequences of their available actions.
- creakingstairs 5y ago
  > There is never a step where I hold any opinion over what the user should do. What do you mean "never"? If you've put one button on top of the other, you've just created a hierachy. You are telling the user that button is more important than the lower button. Have you ever hidden elements until it can be revealed by click on "more" button? That's you telling the user it isn't as important as unhidden elements. Have you made defaults? That's you nudging the user into what _you_ think is the sensible choice. In my opinion, design is fundamentally about having an opinion. A refined opinion that matches a lot of users is what is commonly deemed to be "good design", but obviously not a design never match all users. > What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what I think the user wants. What you think the user want is still what you want. But I think I get what you mean here, you don't like the anti-patterns and nudges that drive users to do what is "worse" for them. I agree with you there but I would argue that they are all still "design". Design is about manipulating people and whether you do it for good or bad is a moral choice.
  - bo1024 5y ago
    > If you've put one button on top of the other, you've just created a hierachy. You are telling the user that button is more important than the lower button. > Have you ever hidden elements until it can be revealed by click on "more" button? That's you telling the user it isn't as important as unhidden elements. > Have you made defaults? That's you nudging the user into what _you_ think is the sensible choice. > In my opinion, design is fundamentally about having an opinion. A refined opinion that matches a lot of users is what is commonly deemed to be "good design", but obviously not a design never match all users. I think we're on the same page here or close to it. I can have lots of strong opinions about how best to inform the user about their options and what will happen if they choose them. I can have strong opinions about which options are best for accomplishing certain goals. But that's different from me trying to get the user to do something specific or wanting them to. Or even having an opinion about what they "should" do, that depends on their goals and circumstances. > Design is about manipulating people and whether you do it for good or bad is a moral choice. I still disagree about this. I would agree if you're creating art, an experience that is meant to be fictional. But if you're providing a tool or resource, then I think design is about informing people about their choices and empowering them to make them. So it should strive to be as far from opinionated or manipulative about those choices as possible.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

Must it be about manipulating people? Can't it be about bringing utility?

ovao 5y ago
At a high level, there’s good utility in guiding users down the path of a curated experience when the designers know the weak points of the app, or where some given tool has much more general utility than another (in which case they might hide the other tool under a context menu or something). It’s not necessarily the case that designers guide users down paths that solely benefit the designer, and I think that approach tends to be seen by most as “bad design”. In fact, it might even be bad design by definition.
Erdromian 5y ago
You can frame it any way you want, but you are manipulating them TO bring utility. You are making a choice, on their behalf, that influences how they experience something without their knowledge or explicit consent. Just because you might intend them only the best, doesn't change that it is a form of unseen manipulation.
cercatrova 5y ago
What you describe as utility is manipulating people, in a sense. You won't design a push door with handles implying it be pulled instead, so in a way, you're manipulating a user's action to push the door. I think you're assuming that manipulating people is used pejoratively, when I'm using it to mean "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, etc.), typically in a skillful manner," rather than "control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly, unfairly, or unscrupulously."
Bjartr 5y ago
When someone sits down to use an app, the app will have higher utility if it makes whatever task they're aiming to do, easier to do. When designing an app's UI, making something easy for users is a matter of understanding what their expectations are and matching what they look for by default when they try to do a thing in your app with what you show them in the UI. That the thing they look for is the thing you show them is both the manipulation and the thing that raises the utility.

pessimizer 5y ago

A "nudge" is synonymous with a "dark pattern."

Bjartr 5y ago
Not really. Dark patterns are a subset of nudges that push a user towards doing something they don't actually want. Say you have a 'signup or continue as guest' dialog with a "signup" button and a "later" button that appears when they try to use your app. If a user is seeing it, it's because they want to use your app. Highlighting one of the buttons is a common way of indicating "this is the thing to click to proceed". Highlighting "later" is a user-positive nudge, since it nudges those who are on autopilot, trying to use your app, to get to using your app. Highlighting "signup" is a user-negative nudge, and therefore dark pattern, because it gets in the way of the user's goal, use your app, purely for the sake of your signup rate, since it's optional.
- mrob 5y ago
  >If a user is seeing it, it's because they want to use your app. It could be because they want to try your app. It implies nothing about long-term goals. >Highlighting "later" is a user-positive nudge The label "later" is itself a dark pattern. It's forcing a user who only wants to try the app to lie, which exploits the principle of consistency (as documented in Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion") to manipulate them into continuing to use the app.
  - Bjartr 5y ago
    > It could be because they want to try your app. It implies nothing about long-term goals. How does "use" imply long term? Is trying an app not at attempt to make use of it? > It's forcing a user who only wants to try the app to lie I didn't even notice that as I wrote it, but you're absolutely right. "skip", "continue", or even "not now" would be more neutral. This stuff really gets in your head without you realizing it when its so pervasive.

bo1024 5y ago

> Design is manipulating people into doing what you want I completely disagree. What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what I think the user wants. I present them with information and choices, they tell me what to do. There is never a step where I hold any opinion over what the user should do. Only steps where I help them understand the consequences of their available actions.

creakingstairs 5y ago
> There is never a step where I hold any opinion over what the user should do. What do you mean "never"? If you've put one button on top of the other, you've just created a hierachy. You are telling the user that button is more important than the lower button. Have you ever hidden elements until it can be revealed by click on "more" button? That's you telling the user it isn't as important as unhidden elements. Have you made defaults? That's you nudging the user into what _you_ think is the sensible choice. In my opinion, design is fundamentally about having an opinion. A refined opinion that matches a lot of users is what is commonly deemed to be "good design", but obviously not a design never match all users. > What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what I think the user wants. What you think the user want is still what you want. But I think I get what you mean here, you don't like the anti-patterns and nudges that drive users to do what is "worse" for them. I agree with you there but I would argue that they are all still "design". Design is about manipulating people and whether you do it for good or bad is a moral choice.
- bo1024 5y ago
  > If you've put one button on top of the other, you've just created a hierachy. You are telling the user that button is more important than the lower button. > Have you ever hidden elements until it can be revealed by click on "more" button? That's you telling the user it isn't as important as unhidden elements. > Have you made defaults? That's you nudging the user into what _you_ think is the sensible choice. > In my opinion, design is fundamentally about having an opinion. A refined opinion that matches a lot of users is what is commonly deemed to be "good design", but obviously not a design never match all users. I think we're on the same page here or close to it. I can have lots of strong opinions about how best to inform the user about their options and what will happen if they choose them. I can have strong opinions about which options are best for accomplishing certain goals. But that's different from me trying to get the user to do something specific or wanting them to. Or even having an opinion about what they "should" do, that depends on their goals and circumstances. > Design is about manipulating people and whether you do it for good or bad is a moral choice. I still disagree about this. I would agree if you're creating art, an experience that is meant to be fictional. But if you're providing a tool or resource, then I think design is about informing people about their choices and empowering them to make them. So it should strive to be as far from opinionated or manipulative about those choices as possible.