3 ms·

I'd be leery of assigning "dark" and "light" intrinsic villainy or heroism to patterns like opt-in vs. opt-out. Yes, a tick normally should mean yes, but contex

I'd be leery of assigning "dark" and "light" intrinsic villainy or heroism to patterns like opt-in vs. opt-out. Yes, a tick normally should mean yes, but context matters. For example, look at the opt-in/opt-out debate in organ donation. The evidence suggests that opt-out forms significantly increase rates of deceased organ donation. As long as the form is clear about what the tick means and an opt-out set up increases positive behavior that benefits fellow man and society, is it really such a clear-cut bad thing? Is the pattern evil, or the outcomes? Also if you're interested in the opt-in/opt-out debate, here's an interesting discussion of some of its nuances: http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/opt-in-or-opt-out-informing-the-organ-donation-debate/ http://www.biomedcentral.com/biome/opt-in-or-opt-out-informi...

TeMPOraL 12y ago
I agree. Opt-out itself is not wrong, what matters are your intentions and the consequences. Some things really do have to be opt-out - like organ donation you mentioned or other things that are beneficial to individual or to the society at no expense to the individual. But the "dark pattern" starts when you're exploiting individuals via opt-out. I think issue is quite simple - if you're exploiting people for your own gain, it's dickish. A lot of the discussion, and generally sales, marketing and PR, is just people trying to excuse doing things they know are wrong, so that they don't feel bad about themselves.
harrybr 12y ago
This article doesn't argue that opt in / opt out has "intrinsic villainy or heroism". Other than that, you're absolutely right – it's all about the context in which the UI is applied.