3 ms·
For sure, there are ways to not have it ambiguous. That said, people use this UX pattern all over the place, and sometimes I'm sure on purpose. Istr one itera
by seanhunter 4y ago
For sure, there are ways to not have it ambiguous.
That said, people use this UX pattern all over the place, and sometimes I'm sure on purpose. Istr one iteration of facebook's data privacy and sharing dialogue used to have it. There was a switch called something like "Enable privacy protection" and you see it set to "off". So you switch it "on" and the label changes to "Disable privacy protection". So which one gives me the privacy protection?
- bentcorner 4y agoIMO labels should never change state. If you need explanatory text about what state the user is in, stick it below the checkbox. Privacy protection [ o-- ] Privacy protection is disabled. Other users can blah blah blah Privacy protection [ --o ] Privacy protection is enabled. Other users cannot blah blah blah
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoI find it very hard to believe that the ambiguity isn't deliberate. I imagine at least 90% of people, upon seeing an option to enable privacy protection, would enable it. But by making the option confusing, you'll end up with people that want it on and inadvertently turn it off. It certainly wouldn't be Facebook's only dark pattern.