6 ms·

I'm going to nitpick a bit here, mostly because it's entertaining to play devil's advocate on a topic that's always met with such one-sided responses on HN (in

by csallen 13y ago

I'm going to nitpick a bit here, mostly because it's entertaining to play devil's advocate on a topic that's always met with such one-sided responses on HN (in this case: dark patterns). My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? Sure, outright trickery and lies are almost unarguably immoral. And the author definitely identifies many examples of that. But there are other instances where I just can't agree with classification of the UX as a dark pattern. Let's take The Ladders, for example. In order to cancel, you have to fill out a form with a few required fields. What a shady, underhanded, and downright spiteful trick! Or is it? Most cancellation forms online will take you through an intermediary confirmation step, anyway. What's so evil about requiring a small form to be filled out? The questions are directly relevant to the act of canceling, and if you truly don't give a shit, you can fill it in with gibberish. Even if you give honest answers, you could be done with this form in literally 5 seconds. It almost certainly took you longer to fire up your browser and navigate to their site, anyway. My point is: The company is not attempting to trick you or obfuscate the truth. They know that the presence of the form will likely lower their cancellation rates by a marginal amount, yes, but there's nothing immoral about lowering cancellation rates. And the form isn't nearly long enough to be considered difficult or unreasonable, so it's not like they're attempting to frustrate people into staying. In the end, it convinces some people to change their minds, but nobody gets hurt. Compare that to, say, The Ladder's decision to auto-renew monthly subscriptions while hiding that fact at the bottom of the page in small gray font. Or to email subscriptions with no unsubscribe link. Or to burying opt-out checkboxes within gigantic forms. In these cases, companies are outright tricking people.

Sealy 13y ago
To give an example: In line with Google's mission statement of "Don't be evil", I figure that it could extend to "Don't be annoying". > My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? Because its just plain annoying to users. Running a business and designing your application / system to trick people into behaving in a certain way is one thing, being transparent is another. I think users these days are becoming a lot more educated and wiser to these techniques, as a result their loyalty is beginning to side with companies that offer a more honest level of transparency.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  Would you like to send that extension to the google integration team? This is the 6th time they've asked me to merge my account with google plus. I'm starting to think the only way to get them to stop is with violence. I wonder if those nag screens come up in a standardized way...
eieio 13y ago
Acting shady hurts your brand. Harry Brignull(the author) discusses this in a talk[1] that I found on the dark patterns website(I checked out the website after loving the article). He makes the argument that sure, many of these tactics might increase your conversion rates or make you some money, at least in the short run. But it also causes you to come off as seedy, to come off as a back alley discount store instead of as a premium brand. He points out that if you're doing this and you're aware of that and you're ok with it, that's one thing. But plenty of sites might not have realized what they're doing and how it comes off. I know I personally resent it when sites leave boxes like "sign up for our newsletter" checked or when they have fake download box adds. Making it hard for me to do what I want to do, no matter how you do it, bothers me. It feels like you're the adversary of the site, not a customer or friend. I believe he talks about it around 12 minutes in but the entire presentation is easily worth watching. He has another one aimed at designers that I plan on watching as soon as I find my headphones(the sound is too low for me to hear it on my MBP). http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/17/dark-patterns-an-overview-for-brand-owners/ http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/17/dark-pattern...
- true_religion 13y ago
  .... actual premium services are usually under contract. Even when they're not they still want you to call into a real live human being to cancel because finding out about your concerns that lead you to cancel a $10,000+ contract is certainly worth the minor possibility that you'll be offended that cancellation is not a push button process.
  - Spearchucker 13y ago
    ...finding out about your concerns... That's the benefit to the service provider. What's the benefit to the service consumer? The point at which a user cancels a service is the last chance a service provider has to end the relationship on a positive note. The provider might earn a little more goodwill, and the consumer has a frustration-free experience. Match.com wanted a whole herd of information when I cancelled. The information I typed in was complete fabrication. As such tactics gain popularity I suspect more people will balk at it, making it a net loss to the service provider. Being nice to your customers is called win-win.
ars 13y ago
He explained this at the end. Companies that do this succeed in the short term, but in the long run they fail.
Ackley 13y ago
yes, all bad practices... I think of this like when you buy something at the store at the advertised price and it comes up at a different price at the register (almost always higher)... this is wrong.
enaeseth 13y ago
Interfaces communicate with their users (at least, if you ask me), and I sometimes find it helpful to explicitly put into words what I think an interface is saying. I interpret The Ladder's cancellation screen as saying, "You cannot cancel your membership without giving us a reason." Imagine if you were trying to break up with a significant other, and they told you that you were not allowed to end the relationship unless you gave a reason first. That would be horribly controlling, and totally unacceptable. Of course, a romantic relationship is rather more significant than a subscription, but I think The Ladder's exit process is controlling in the same way, and the only difference is that it occurs in a less important relationship. It still gives me the same feeling that my wishes and agency are being subjugated, and I believe that's a bad thing to do to a person, regardless of the particular situation.
anoopelias 13y ago
Again, its a slippery slope. Making the user hover over for some more time over his/her decision is not very far from a dark pattern. In case you need a feedback the best you should be going for are optional fields. We're seeing 'one-click unsubscribe' link in many emails these days. I think that is one good indication for a spam filter to let through. This is a proof that only the right approach prevail eventually.
dsugarman 13y ago
I think it isn't moral to lower cancellation rates by making the cancel action difficult. The best way to grow is to have users that love you. I believe the inverse is also true, having users that hate you will limit your growth. I once had a terrifically hard time cancelling a gym membership that turned from a free trial into a 2 year, $500 membership automatically. I still express strong feelings any time I hear the gym's name.
weland 13y ago
> My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? The problem isn't when a company makes it hard for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do. Apple probably doesn't want its users to electrocute themselves, so they make sure the charger is properly isolated and all that. The problem is when a company makes it hard for people to do what they want to do. That sucks, because it's usually why people are paying money for. In this case, some people will want to make sure they aren't tracked (the other people don't care about it, so the option's placement is irrelevant to them). Hiding that option so well is simply useless: it achieves nothing for the people who don't care about it, and annoys those who do care about it (who tend to be tech-savvy enough that they'll find it no matter how well it's hidden). It's simply a defect in design: a misfeature that was grafted there for the glorification of someone who needed a contract signed. It provides zero advantages for the contracting parties, and huge disadvantages for the users.
- Zakharov 13y ago
  The distinction between the two groups is not that clear. I suspect many users don't care too much, but if they stumble upon a "don't track me" option, they'll select it.
Joeri 13y ago
> Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? I'm reminded of Star Wars, light side versus dark side. Neither side is stronger, and which side is "better" really depends on your POV. We do know that the dark side is "easier". Companies similarly can choose to go light side or dark side and end up with the same bottom line, but light side takes more up-front effort. Now, let me apply the same question: if the dark side is easier and is as likely to get you results, why isn't it a perfectly valid choice?
pessimizer 13y ago
>What's so evil about requiring a small form to be filled out? What's so evil about requiring a 20 minute form to be filled out in order to cancel? >The questions are directly relevant to the act of canceling For The Ladders, and not for the user. The user is done with questions and just wants to cancel. The website is demanding that the consumer do free labor for it in return for the privilege of canceling. It's not tricking you, it's simply extorting you. Combined with... >[...]say, The Ladder's decision to auto-renew monthly subscriptions while hiding that fact at the bottom of the page in small gray font[...] ...it's a direct statement that if you don't participate in our consumer research program, we will withdraw $25 from your account every month until you do. I don't even think that's legal.
- npsimons 13y ago
  Easy solution: send a certified letter with your cancellation notice; any charges after that can be legally reported as CC fraud. Enough people do that, and maybe they won't be pulling that bullshit anymore.
  - sneak 13y ago
    If you can sign up on the web, you should be able to cancel on the web. Factoring in the cost of my time, sending a certified letter costs me $200.
    - npsimons 13y ago
      Eight months of billing at $25 a pop, and they won't stop until you fill out their stupid form; screwing them over with a CC fraud charge would be worth $200 to me, if they're going to be that shady.
CalinBalauru 13y ago
A much better pattern for the cancelation that I've seen is to cancel your account and then present you with the feedback form, they will get a much higher rate of usefull feedback this way.
mikeash 13y ago
Attempting to change people's minds by frustrating them rather than by actually presenting them with reasons to stay is, in a word, evil. I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind." Whenever two entities transact, there are four basic outcomes. The best outcome is when both parties benefit. That's what we should aim for in general. Another good outcome is when one party willingly takes a hit to benefit the other party, which we could call charity. Then there are evil outcomes where one party harms another party for their own benefit, and finally stupid outcomes where both parties come out worse off. Trying to convince me not to cancel by wasting my time is clearly in the "evil" category. There's no attempt at mutual benefit, they're just trying to increase my cost in order to increase their benefit. An honest company tries to increase my benefit to also increase their benefit.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind. See also the evil AOL dialer dialogue that used weird negatives to confuse people into not disconnecting. That was so evil I think they last some law cases over it. It's disappointing that so much effort goes into evil tweaks. But it's worse that customers reward that evil behaviour. Candy Crush is huge at the moment. I'd pay £5 for something like Candy Crush without the evil; heck, I'd buy it for all my family too to avoid the constant FB spam from it.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    The freemium app craze drives me nuts. Used to be, the way to get more revenue from your game was to make it better. Now game creators are getting more revenue from their games by making them worse. That's a great example of win-win versus win-lose transactions. Note that I have nothing against game creators charging for their products, it's just that the freemium model is pretty much inherently built such that creators make their money by making the game less fun to play.

by csallen 13y ago

Sealy 13y ago

To give an example: In line with Google's mission statement of "Don't be evil", I figure that it could extend to "Don't be annoying". > My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? Because its just plain annoying to users. Running a business and designing your application / system to trick people into behaving in a certain way is one thing, being transparent is another. I think users these days are becoming a lot more educated and wiser to these techniques, as a result their loyalty is beginning to side with companies that offer a more honest level of transparency.

GhotiFish 13y ago
Would you like to send that extension to the google integration team? This is the 6th time they've asked me to merge my account with google plus. I'm starting to think the only way to get them to stop is with violence. I wonder if those nag screens come up in a standardized way...

eieio 13y ago

Acting shady hurts your brand. Harry Brignull(the author) discusses this in a talk[1] that I found on the dark patterns website(I checked out the website after loving the article). He makes the argument that sure, many of these tactics might increase your conversion rates or make you some money, at least in the short run. But it also causes you to come off as seedy, to come off as a back alley discount store instead of as a premium brand. He points out that if you're doing this and you're aware of that and you're ok with it, that's one thing. But plenty of sites might not have realized what they're doing and how it comes off. I know I personally resent it when sites leave boxes like "sign up for our newsletter" checked or when they have fake download box adds. Making it hard for me to do what I want to do, no matter how you do it, bothers me. It feels like you're the adversary of the site, not a customer or friend. I believe he talks about it around 12 minutes in but the entire presentation is easily worth watching. He has another one aimed at designers that I plan on watching as soon as I find my headphones(the sound is too low for me to hear it on my MBP). http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/17/dark-patterns-an-overview-for-brand-owners/ http://www.90percentofeverything.com/2010/12/17/dark-pattern...

true_religion 13y ago
.... actual premium services are usually under contract. Even when they're not they still want you to call into a real live human being to cancel because finding out about your concerns that lead you to cancel a $10,000+ contract is certainly worth the minor possibility that you'll be offended that cancellation is not a push button process.
- Spearchucker 13y ago
  ...finding out about your concerns... That's the benefit to the service provider. What's the benefit to the service consumer? The point at which a user cancels a service is the last chance a service provider has to end the relationship on a positive note. The provider might earn a little more goodwill, and the consumer has a frustration-free experience. Match.com wanted a whole herd of information when I cancelled. The information I typed in was complete fabrication. As such tactics gain popularity I suspect more people will balk at it, making it a net loss to the service provider. Being nice to your customers is called win-win.

ars 13y ago

He explained this at the end. Companies that do this succeed in the short term, but in the long run they fail.

Ackley 13y ago

yes, all bad practices... I think of this like when you buy something at the store at the advertised price and it comes up at a different price at the register (almost always higher)... this is wrong.

enaeseth 13y ago

Interfaces communicate with their users (at least, if you ask me), and I sometimes find it helpful to explicitly put into words what I think an interface is saying. I interpret The Ladder's cancellation screen as saying, "You cannot cancel your membership without giving us a reason." Imagine if you were trying to break up with a significant other, and they told you that you were not allowed to end the relationship unless you gave a reason first. That would be horribly controlling, and totally unacceptable. Of course, a romantic relationship is rather more significant than a subscription, but I think The Ladder's exit process is controlling in the same way, and the only difference is that it occurs in a less important relationship. It still gives me the same feeling that my wishes and agency are being subjugated, and I believe that's a bad thing to do to a person, regardless of the particular situation.

anoopelias 13y ago

Again, its a slippery slope. Making the user hover over for some more time over his/her decision is not very far from a dark pattern. In case you need a feedback the best you should be going for are optional fields. We're seeing 'one-click unsubscribe' link in many emails these days. I think that is one good indication for a spam filter to let through. This is a proof that only the right approach prevail eventually.

dsugarman 13y ago

I think it isn't moral to lower cancellation rates by making the cancel action difficult. The best way to grow is to have users that love you. I believe the inverse is also true, having users that hate you will limit your growth. I once had a terrifically hard time cancelling a gym membership that turned from a free trial into a 2 year, $500 membership automatically. I still express strong feelings any time I hear the gym's name.

weland 13y ago

> My question is: Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? The problem isn't when a company makes it hard for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do. Apple probably doesn't want its users to electrocute themselves, so they make sure the charger is properly isolated and all that. The problem is when a company makes it hard for people to do what they want to do. That sucks, because it's usually why people are paying money for. In this case, some people will want to make sure they aren't tracked (the other people don't care about it, so the option's placement is irrelevant to them). Hiding that option so well is simply useless: it achieves nothing for the people who don't care about it, and annoys those who do care about it (who tend to be tech-savvy enough that they'll find it no matter how well it's hidden). It's simply a defect in design: a misfeature that was grafted there for the glorification of someone who needed a contract signed. It provides zero advantages for the contracting parties, and huge disadvantages for the users.

Zakharov 13y ago
The distinction between the two groups is not that clear. I suspect many users don't care too much, but if they stumble upon a "don't track me" option, they'll select it.

Joeri 13y ago

> Why should a company make it easy for people to do exactly what it doesn't want them to do? I'm reminded of Star Wars, light side versus dark side. Neither side is stronger, and which side is "better" really depends on your POV. We do know that the dark side is "easier". Companies similarly can choose to go light side or dark side and end up with the same bottom line, but light side takes more up-front effort. Now, let me apply the same question: if the dark side is easier and is as likely to get you results, why isn't it a perfectly valid choice?

pessimizer 13y ago

>What's so evil about requiring a small form to be filled out? What's so evil about requiring a 20 minute form to be filled out in order to cancel? >The questions are directly relevant to the act of canceling For The Ladders, and not for the user. The user is done with questions and just wants to cancel. The website is demanding that the consumer do free labor for it in return for the privilege of canceling. It's not tricking you, it's simply extorting you. Combined with... >[...]say, The Ladder's decision to auto-renew monthly subscriptions while hiding that fact at the bottom of the page in small gray font[...] ...it's a direct statement that if you don't participate in our consumer research program, we will withdraw $25 from your account every month until you do. I don't even think that's legal.

npsimons 13y ago
Easy solution: send a certified letter with your cancellation notice; any charges after that can be legally reported as CC fraud. Enough people do that, and maybe they won't be pulling that bullshit anymore.
- sneak 13y ago
  If you can sign up on the web, you should be able to cancel on the web. Factoring in the cost of my time, sending a certified letter costs me $200.
  - npsimons 13y ago
    Eight months of billing at $25 a pop, and they won't stop until you fill out their stupid form; screwing them over with a CC fraud charge would be worth $200 to me, if they're going to be that shady.

CalinBalauru 13y ago

A much better pattern for the cancelation that I've seen is to cancel your account and then present you with the feedback form, they will get a much higher rate of usefull feedback this way.

mikeash 13y ago

Attempting to change people's minds by frustrating them rather than by actually presenting them with reasons to stay is, in a word, evil. I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind." Whenever two entities transact, there are four basic outcomes. The best outcome is when both parties benefit. That's what we should aim for in general. Another good outcome is when one party willingly takes a hit to benefit the other party, which we could call charity. Then there are evil outcomes where one party harms another party for their own benefit, and finally stupid outcomes where both parties come out worse off. Trying to convince me not to cancel by wasting my time is clearly in the "evil" category. There's no attempt at mutual benefit, they're just trying to increase my cost in order to increase their benefit. An honest company tries to increase my benefit to also increase their benefit.

DanBC 13y ago
> I'd have no problems with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, won't you reconsider? Here are some reasons why we think you should stay." I have a big problem with a page that says, "We're sorry to see you go, so we're going to make your life a little bit harder in the hopes that you change your mind. See also the evil AOL dialer dialogue that used weird negatives to confuse people into not disconnecting. That was so evil I think they last some law cases over it. It's disappointing that so much effort goes into evil tweaks. But it's worse that customers reward that evil behaviour. Candy Crush is huge at the moment. I'd pay £5 for something like Candy Crush without the evil; heck, I'd buy it for all my family too to avoid the constant FB spam from it.
- mikeash 13y ago
  The freemium app craze drives me nuts. Used to be, the way to get more revenue from your game was to make it better. Now game creators are getting more revenue from their games by making them worse. That's a great example of win-win versus win-lose transactions. Note that I have nothing against game creators charging for their products, it's just that the freemium model is pretty much inherently built such that creators make their money by making the game less fun to play.