4 ms·

I'm pretty sure we've trained users to click "I accept" to basically any permissions popup or notification on any application.

mindslight 3y ago
s/we/Microsoft/ I just took some time at actually configuring a MS Windows VM I "care" about, after not really having paid attention to Windows in well over a decade. They're still doing it. Ongoing countless pop up dialogs about "permissions", "are you sure", windows "defender", etc. I would have thought they would have worked on security, cleaned up the UI load by streamlining a lot of the popup questions, made elevated permissions into a better defined thing you enable once per major action rather than just something you routinely need, etc. But no, they really just took the same dumpster fire of an operating system, ported over notification hell from mobile land, rigged ads into various UI elements, and called it a new version. Shame on me for having expected anything more, but oof. I guess the dynamic is just the equivalent of the US legal regime where individuals are forced into "consenting" to all sorts of vile things through unilateral contracts of adhesion. The only real purpose seems to be so that when someone complains about some poor outcome, they can be told it's their own fault for having accepted.
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  No I do really mean "we". Every website that asks for cookies. Every phone app that asks for permissions. Every interface with technology with an "I agree" to do anything. Microsoft isn't special, just an egregious example of it. But everyone does it.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    And I really intended to specifically condemn Microsoft for how strongly they normalized it. For one, pinning it on "we" is too widely scoped when it was only some developers/managers responsible for horrible UIs. For example the only people responsible for cookie spite-nags are the companies that decided malicious compliance was the way to go. Phone apps were actually a decent way of asking for permissions - at the start when an app is first installed. That users couldn't say "no" was a problem, but the flow was correct. The newer style of interrupting a user to prompt on the first use is much worse. But the overall idea of setting permissions per app is sound - users needing to make these decisions is unavoidable, especially in the world of proprietary software where the interests of the developers strongly diverge from the interest of the users. But in my condemnation I really do mean to call out Microsoft specifically. Sure a lot of things have routine dark patterns, but Windows is exceptional in terms of sheer volume and opaqueness. There's a massive difference between some javascript popup that can be ignored or Android asking one pertintent permissions question before accessing contacts/photos/etc, and Windows popping up multiple nondescript "OK" dialogs after a single user intent click.

mindslight 3y ago

s/we/Microsoft/ I just took some time at actually configuring a MS Windows VM I "care" about, after not really having paid attention to Windows in well over a decade. They're still doing it. Ongoing countless pop up dialogs about "permissions", "are you sure", windows "defender", etc. I would have thought they would have worked on security, cleaned up the UI load by streamlining a lot of the popup questions, made elevated permissions into a better defined thing you enable once per major action rather than just something you routinely need, etc. But no, they really just took the same dumpster fire of an operating system, ported over notification hell from mobile land, rigged ads into various UI elements, and called it a new version. Shame on me for having expected anything more, but oof. I guess the dynamic is just the equivalent of the US legal regime where individuals are forced into "consenting" to all sorts of vile things through unilateral contracts of adhesion. The only real purpose seems to be so that when someone complains about some poor outcome, they can be told it's their own fault for having accepted.

EatingWithForks 3y ago
No I do really mean "we". Every website that asks for cookies. Every phone app that asks for permissions. Every interface with technology with an "I agree" to do anything. Microsoft isn't special, just an egregious example of it. But everyone does it.
- mindslight 3y ago
  And I really intended to specifically condemn Microsoft for how strongly they normalized it. For one, pinning it on "we" is too widely scoped when it was only some developers/managers responsible for horrible UIs. For example the only people responsible for cookie spite-nags are the companies that decided malicious compliance was the way to go. Phone apps were actually a decent way of asking for permissions - at the start when an app is first installed. That users couldn't say "no" was a problem, but the flow was correct. The newer style of interrupting a user to prompt on the first use is much worse. But the overall idea of setting permissions per app is sound - users needing to make these decisions is unavoidable, especially in the world of proprietary software where the interests of the developers strongly diverge from the interest of the users. But in my condemnation I really do mean to call out Microsoft specifically. Sure a lot of things have routine dark patterns, but Windows is exceptional in terms of sheer volume and opaqueness. There's a massive difference between some javascript popup that can be ignored or Android asking one pertintent permissions question before accessing contacts/photos/etc, and Windows popping up multiple nondescript "OK" dialogs after a single user intent click.