3 ms·

The anti pattern here is that the lamen clearly can't distinguish the ads from actual emails, hence the EU stepped in. Instead of just moving to a different ad

The anti pattern here is that the lamen clearly can't distinguish the ads from actual emails, hence the EU stepped in. Instead of just moving to a different ad delivery mechanism (right option) they are still trying to push the inline option (which is objectively "worse" for most users, but good for bottom line) as the best choice, using language that make the "good choice" seem like a stupid option (slower and less space). Hence the language and design here certainly reads like an anti pattern to me.

tzs 5y ago
From the link in another comment about the EU ruling it didn't sound like the issue was that users couldn't distinguish ads from emails. It was that the EU has decided that if the ads appear in the inbox then they count as direct marketing, which must be opted into. I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Unless they went totally overboard on the number of ads all it would do would mean maybe a little bit more scrolling on average to get through the inbox. Having a separate ad section would be a lot more distracting and would likely reduce the space available for displaying the messages that I do read.
- autoexec 5y ago
  > I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Inline is certainly the worst option for most users. If the ad is always displayed in the same location (a location separated from what you're there to read: your emails) it can be ignored. As big and distracting as they'll try to make it, most people will eventually tune it out entirely, because they already know nothing they care about will be there. The term for this is "Banner Blindness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) and it means that most people will spend very little time paying attention to the ad. Inline ads are mixed in with the content you care about (your emails). You say yourself that you'd be forced to skim over them along with everything else that you're forced to evaluate to determine if you actually care about that message or not. That means every time one shows up you'll be forced to determine if what you're seeing is an advertisement or an email that you may or may not care about. You won't be able to become blind to the ads because that would cause you to miss important messages you want to read. Ads, legitimate messages you care about, and legitimate messages you don't care about, they will all need to be evaluated and that will require you to read the ad the same way you are forced to read the sender/subject lines of the email in your inbox you don't care about. Microsoft knows that inline ads are more effective. It's why they are pushing them so hard. Microsoft wouldn't try to manipulate people into selecting an option that wasn't advantageous for Microsoft. They aren't looking out for your best interests. They are looking out for themselves at your expense. Any time they seem to be steering you toward something, that's a warning sign that you should be extra careful.
passivate 5y ago
>(which is objectively "worse" for most users, but good for bottom line) Do inline ads really make that much more money? I would have thought advertisers would pay more for bold in-your-face banners over subtle grey text somewhere.
wutbrodo 5y ago
Thanks for your perspective. I guess my dispute is with the claim that this is "objectively worse for most users". Just as some people may prefer a higher volume of untargeted ads to targeting, while others may prefer the opposite, I don't see how one can claim that nobody could possibly prefer less obtrusive inline ads to big blocky ads that reduce the screen real estate of the main content.

tzs 5y ago

From the link in another comment about the EU ruling it didn't sound like the issue was that users couldn't distinguish ads from emails. It was that the EU has decided that if the ads appear in the inbox then they count as direct marketing, which must be opted into. I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Unless they went totally overboard on the number of ads all it would do would mean maybe a little bit more scrolling on average to get through the inbox. Having a separate ad section would be a lot more distracting and would likely reduce the space available for displaying the messages that I do read.

autoexec 5y ago
> I don't see how the inline option is objectively worse for most users. If I had to have ads in my email client I'd definitely prefer inline. My normal email already includes things I don't normally read so I'm already skimming the inbox to select what to read and discarding the rest. Ignoring ads would be no different than ignoring the other things I ignore. Inline is certainly the worst option for most users. If the ad is always displayed in the same location (a location separated from what you're there to read: your emails) it can be ignored. As big and distracting as they'll try to make it, most people will eventually tune it out entirely, because they already know nothing they care about will be there. The term for this is "Banner Blindness" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) and it means that most people will spend very little time paying attention to the ad. Inline ads are mixed in with the content you care about (your emails). You say yourself that you'd be forced to skim over them along with everything else that you're forced to evaluate to determine if you actually care about that message or not. That means every time one shows up you'll be forced to determine if what you're seeing is an advertisement or an email that you may or may not care about. You won't be able to become blind to the ads because that would cause you to miss important messages you want to read. Ads, legitimate messages you care about, and legitimate messages you don't care about, they will all need to be evaluated and that will require you to read the ad the same way you are forced to read the sender/subject lines of the email in your inbox you don't care about. Microsoft knows that inline ads are more effective. It's why they are pushing them so hard. Microsoft wouldn't try to manipulate people into selecting an option that wasn't advantageous for Microsoft. They aren't looking out for your best interests. They are looking out for themselves at your expense. Any time they seem to be steering you toward something, that's a warning sign that you should be extra careful.

passivate 5y ago

>(which is objectively "worse" for most users, but good for bottom line) Do inline ads really make that much more money? I would have thought advertisers would pay more for bold in-your-face banners over subtle grey text somewhere.

wutbrodo 5y ago

Thanks for your perspective. I guess my dispute is with the claim that this is "objectively worse for most users". Just as some people may prefer a higher volume of untargeted ads to targeting, while others may prefer the opposite, I don't see how one can claim that nobody could possibly prefer less obtrusive inline ads to big blocky ads that reduce the screen real estate of the main content.