5 ms·

UXer with 25+ years here. To be respectfully blunt "the responsibility of designers to the end users of their work." No, it's our job to make the user's goals

UXer with 25+ years here. To be respectfully blunt "the responsibility of designers to the end users of their work." No, it's our job to make the user's goals as seamless as possible - within the functional constraints of the business. If that business is to fuck users privacy over, we must operate within that overarching environment or GTFO. To be clear, I dont understand how conscientious UXer's function at a place like Facebook, unless the plot of Servance is a reality?

mixmastamyk 4y ago
Professional ethics are a thing. "I was just following orders" not a valid excuse. This goes for developers and data folks as well (everyone), so not like designers are being targeted.
- mbesto 4y ago
  > Professional ethics are a thing. "I was just following orders" not a valid excuse. Let's unpack this one for a second. First, the idea of dark patterns in UI/UX is a relatively new concept, so the ethics are naturally going to get muddy. So pretending to be handy wavy about "just be ethical" is not fair to UX/UI people. Let's take an example dark pattern of "are you sure you want to cancel" taking 3 modals to complete. Each modal tells you something about the app that you may not have. The UX'r does an A/B test and finds that only 23% finish cancelling after implementation of the 3-step modal. So to one user this is a nuisance having jump through 3 modals, but to another user they learned on modal #2 about a product feature they didn't know was possible and decided not to cancel. Is the UX'r morally wrong for putting in the 3-modal even though in one case it was a nuisance and in another it was beneficial?
  - dleslie 4y ago
    The obvious ethical alternative is to make it an easy process to cancel and an easy process to renew and restore cancelled accounts.
    - mbesto 4y ago
      > an easy process to renew and restore cancelled accounts. What if the person was cancelling and was never given the opportunity to know there was a potential benefit? The ethical thing would also be to completely delete all of their data (including their login). They now come back and you say "sorry we can't restore all of your data, you need to start over". Didn't you just create (1) a bad UX and (2) a new dark pattern? Again, my point isn't whether the 3-modal pattern is a dark pattern, but rather that dark patterns are incredibly difficult to define, are novel and thus require nuance when determining their ethical ramifications.
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        It's not difficult at all, when you understand the workflow and are honest with the user about the ramifications. If honesty is difficult, that is the problem.
        mbesto 4y ago
        > Didn't you just create (1) a bad UX and (2) a new dark pattern? You still didn't address this? Care to elaborate on what the "honest" path is here?
        mixmastamyk 4y ago
        0) Do a better job so more folks understand the benefits. 1) Have one confirmation that explains the situation clearly (≤ 3 bullets) and avoids fat fingers, such as disallow input for three seconds. Github delete repo flow is reasonably similar.
      - dleslie 4y ago
        _Eventual_ total deletion is ethical, yes, but having a grace period after cancellation where data is temporarily retained is both obvious and established practice.
  - dlp211 4y ago
    Yes. You've drawn a conclusion about motive without supporting evidence. You don't know why people quit trying to cancel, it could be that they became so frustrated with the cancellation process that they gave up. Also, if you want to inform folks of features they might not know about, waiting until the are about to cancel is probably a bad design. And needing three modal boxes to inform them is absolutely a dark pattern and unethical.
    - mbesto 4y ago
      > You've drawn a conclusion about motive without supporting evidence. It's a conceptual example with an entirely plausible outcome. No need to scrutinize it any further than that. > And needing three modal boxes to inform them is absolutely a dark pattern and unethical. How do you conclude "absolutely a dark pattern" if even one person realizes benefit from it? My point is precisely this - there are no absolute ethics when it comes to dark patterns.
      - dlp211 4y ago
        > How do you conclude "absolutely a dark pattern" if even one person realizes benefit from it? That's the wrong way to think about Dark Patterns. It's not about whether they are ever helpful, but whether they are ever harmful. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, it matters how the end user experiences the design. 3 modal boxes to cancel is absolutely harmful when it can be done in 1 and that 1 modal can even include all the reasons you shouldn't cancel. But you get one shot to keep a customer, not three tries to keep and frustrate them. And I have personally given up on cancellation before because it was too complicated/long/frustrating. So yea, dark patterns are real, they are not ethical, and you shouldn't defend them.
        mbesto 4y ago
        > you shouldn't defend them. This is why we can't have a good faith discussion, because you think I'm defending dark patterns. I'm not. I'm simply asking how the designer determines what is a dark pattern that unilaterally has bad ethical ramifications. > 3 modal boxes to cancel is absolutely harmful when it can be done in 1 and that 1 modal can even include all the reasons you shouldn't cancel. But you get one shot to keep a customer, not three tries to keep and frustrate them. I would argue even 1 modal is too much. Why can't I just click the "CANCEL MY ACCOUNT" button? Isn't a modal that says "TYPE YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME TO CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION" in hostile to the user? How do you ensure people don't accidentally cancel and then want to reactive with all of their old data? and...and..etc. Do you see why the interpretation of "this is a dark pattern" is almost entirely up to the user perception and has varying degrees of difficulty to the parse as the designer?
  - neura 4y ago
    | the idea of dark patterns in UI/UX is a relatively new concept Relative to what? Before the web? I left one of the first technologies companies I had ever worked for (huge name more than 20 years ago) specifically because they were using dark patterns. Not even in web UI, but in their installer for actual software (which was to be used in conjunction with the web). Specifically, swapping default and representative checkbox states. You know, the "now that we've set them up to uncheck for opting out, we'll show the next box unchecked and the user has to check it to opt-out" trick.
    - mbesto 4y ago
      The term was only coined ~12 years ago...
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago
        But attempting to cheat your customer is old as time.
CharlesW 4y ago
> To be clear, I dont understand how conscientious UXer's function at a place like Facebook, unless the plot of Servance is a reality? Seems unfair to call out UX designers when everyone who contributes to Facebook's mission is as culpable.
- radiorental 4y ago
  didn't mean to only be unfair to my kind, just a UX trait to not speak on the behalf of or make assumptions about other's motivations without direct domain knowledge or research.
jl6 4y ago
> To be clear, I dont understand how conscientious UXer's function at a place like Facebook, unless the plot of Servance is a reality? Fully ethical work that puts dinner on the table is a rare luxury, unfortunately. In the meantime, there are many rationalizations to choose from. I imagine a popular one at Facebook is something about the ends justifying the means.
- rexpop 4y ago
  Insofar as "Severance" is a metaphor for compartmentalization, yes: it's a ubiquitous reality.
- moomoo11 4y ago
  You can’t put dinner on the table for 150k, you can only do that with at least 180k + 250k RSU (I have no idea what designers make at MANGA so I’m using average senior engineer comp) Come on now!
  - neura 4y ago
    I'm reading this as sarcasm, but while you can "put dinner on the table for even less", it's still very rare (in over 20 years of my experience in the industry) to find a company that pays more than non-profit salaries and you can't find things to feel terrible about. Heck, some of the non-profits I've worked with were some of the most terrible ones.
    - moomoo11 4y ago
      The only reason to work any non founding team member would aspire to go to MANGA is the compensation. Just going to be real here (no shame or anything in admitting the truth), if it was to “work on challenging problems” there are numerous ways to do that without working at MANGA. NOBODY else pays 400k minimums for senior level roles. But 150-200k is common for non MANGA and that’s more than enough in the USA in most places. But you can’t buy both a Plaid and a big house at the same time, and fund many luxury hobbies if you go down that path. All I’m saying is.. be real :)
- 4y ago
lucideer 4y ago
> To be respectfully blunt "the responsibility of designers to the end users of their work." > No, it's our job to ... To be respectfully more blunt, it seems naïve to assume responsibility and job overlap completely in a world with Facebooks, et Al, unless we're wilfully abandoning ethics (or have interesting political views).

mixmastamyk 4y ago

Professional ethics are a thing. "I was just following orders" not a valid excuse. This goes for developers and data folks as well (everyone), so not like designers are being targeted.

mbesto 4y ago
> Professional ethics are a thing. "I was just following orders" not a valid excuse. Let's unpack this one for a second. First, the idea of dark patterns in UI/UX is a relatively new concept, so the ethics are naturally going to get muddy. So pretending to be handy wavy about "just be ethical" is not fair to UX/UI people. Let's take an example dark pattern of "are you sure you want to cancel" taking 3 modals to complete. Each modal tells you something about the app that you may not have. The UX'r does an A/B test and finds that only 23% finish cancelling after implementation of the 3-step modal. So to one user this is a nuisance having jump through 3 modals, but to another user they learned on modal #2 about a product feature they didn't know was possible and decided not to cancel. Is the UX'r morally wrong for putting in the 3-modal even though in one case it was a nuisance and in another it was beneficial?
- dleslie 4y ago
  The obvious ethical alternative is to make it an easy process to cancel and an easy process to renew and restore cancelled accounts.
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > an easy process to renew and restore cancelled accounts. What if the person was cancelling and was never given the opportunity to know there was a potential benefit? The ethical thing would also be to completely delete all of their data (including their login). They now come back and you say "sorry we can't restore all of your data, you need to start over". Didn't you just create (1) a bad UX and (2) a new dark pattern? Again, my point isn't whether the 3-modal pattern is a dark pattern, but rather that dark patterns are incredibly difficult to define, are novel and thus require nuance when determining their ethical ramifications.
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      It's not difficult at all, when you understand the workflow and are honest with the user about the ramifications. If honesty is difficult, that is the problem.
      - mbesto 4y ago
        > Didn't you just create (1) a bad UX and (2) a new dark pattern? You still didn't address this? Care to elaborate on what the "honest" path is here?
        mixmastamyk 4y ago
        0) Do a better job so more folks understand the benefits. 1) Have one confirmation that explains the situation clearly (≤ 3 bullets) and avoids fat fingers, such as disallow input for three seconds. Github delete repo flow is reasonably similar.
    - dleslie 4y ago
      _Eventual_ total deletion is ethical, yes, but having a grace period after cancellation where data is temporarily retained is both obvious and established practice.
- dlp211 4y ago
  Yes. You've drawn a conclusion about motive without supporting evidence. You don't know why people quit trying to cancel, it could be that they became so frustrated with the cancellation process that they gave up. Also, if you want to inform folks of features they might not know about, waiting until the are about to cancel is probably a bad design. And needing three modal boxes to inform them is absolutely a dark pattern and unethical.
  - mbesto 4y ago
    > You've drawn a conclusion about motive without supporting evidence. It's a conceptual example with an entirely plausible outcome. No need to scrutinize it any further than that. > And needing three modal boxes to inform them is absolutely a dark pattern and unethical. How do you conclude "absolutely a dark pattern" if even one person realizes benefit from it? My point is precisely this - there are no absolute ethics when it comes to dark patterns.
    - dlp211 4y ago
      > How do you conclude "absolutely a dark pattern" if even one person realizes benefit from it? That's the wrong way to think about Dark Patterns. It's not about whether they are ever helpful, but whether they are ever harmful. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, it matters how the end user experiences the design. 3 modal boxes to cancel is absolutely harmful when it can be done in 1 and that 1 modal can even include all the reasons you shouldn't cancel. But you get one shot to keep a customer, not three tries to keep and frustrate them. And I have personally given up on cancellation before because it was too complicated/long/frustrating. So yea, dark patterns are real, they are not ethical, and you shouldn't defend them.
      - mbesto 4y ago
        > you shouldn't defend them. This is why we can't have a good faith discussion, because you think I'm defending dark patterns. I'm not. I'm simply asking how the designer determines what is a dark pattern that unilaterally has bad ethical ramifications. > 3 modal boxes to cancel is absolutely harmful when it can be done in 1 and that 1 modal can even include all the reasons you shouldn't cancel. But you get one shot to keep a customer, not three tries to keep and frustrate them. I would argue even 1 modal is too much. Why can't I just click the "CANCEL MY ACCOUNT" button? Isn't a modal that says "TYPE YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME TO CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION" in hostile to the user? How do you ensure people don't accidentally cancel and then want to reactive with all of their old data? and...and..etc. Do you see why the interpretation of "this is a dark pattern" is almost entirely up to the user perception and has varying degrees of difficulty to the parse as the designer?
- neura 4y ago
  | the idea of dark patterns in UI/UX is a relatively new concept Relative to what? Before the web? I left one of the first technologies companies I had ever worked for (huge name more than 20 years ago) specifically because they were using dark patterns. Not even in web UI, but in their installer for actual software (which was to be used in conjunction with the web). Specifically, swapping default and representative checkbox states. You know, the "now that we've set them up to uncheck for opting out, we'll show the next box unchecked and the user has to check it to opt-out" trick.
  - mbesto 4y ago
    The term was only coined ~12 years ago...
    - mixmastamyk 4y ago
      But attempting to cheat your customer is old as time.

CharlesW 4y ago

> To be clear, I dont understand how conscientious UXer's function at a place like Facebook, unless the plot of Servance is a reality? Seems unfair to call out UX designers when everyone who contributes to Facebook's mission is as culpable.

radiorental 4y ago
didn't mean to only be unfair to my kind, just a UX trait to not speak on the behalf of or make assumptions about other's motivations without direct domain knowledge or research.

jl6 4y ago

> To be clear, I dont understand how conscientious UXer's function at a place like Facebook, unless the plot of Servance is a reality? Fully ethical work that puts dinner on the table is a rare luxury, unfortunately. In the meantime, there are many rationalizations to choose from. I imagine a popular one at Facebook is something about the ends justifying the means.

rexpop 4y ago
Insofar as "Severance" is a metaphor for compartmentalization, yes: it's a ubiquitous reality.
moomoo11 4y ago
You can’t put dinner on the table for 150k, you can only do that with at least 180k + 250k RSU (I have no idea what designers make at MANGA so I’m using average senior engineer comp) Come on now!
- neura 4y ago
  I'm reading this as sarcasm, but while you can "put dinner on the table for even less", it's still very rare (in over 20 years of my experience in the industry) to find a company that pays more than non-profit salaries and you can't find things to feel terrible about. Heck, some of the non-profits I've worked with were some of the most terrible ones.
  - moomoo11 4y ago
    The only reason to work any non founding team member would aspire to go to MANGA is the compensation. Just going to be real here (no shame or anything in admitting the truth), if it was to “work on challenging problems” there are numerous ways to do that without working at MANGA. NOBODY else pays 400k minimums for senior level roles. But 150-200k is common for non MANGA and that’s more than enough in the USA in most places. But you can’t buy both a Plaid and a big house at the same time, and fund many luxury hobbies if you go down that path. All I’m saying is.. be real :)
4y ago

lucideer 4y ago

> To be respectfully blunt "the responsibility of designers to the end users of their work." > No, it's our job to ... To be respectfully more blunt, it seems naïve to assume responsibility and job overlap completely in a world with Facebooks, et Al, unless we're wilfully abandoning ethics (or have interesting political views).