Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

minimizedistraction.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#171

Post by fmajid »

mountainb wrote: post #68
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Ironically, the slideshow format is extremely 'low density', and frustrates my ability to quickly read what they have to say. I didn't get all the way through it either.

It's a great format for reaching functional illiterates, which accurately describes huge portions of the white collar workforce.

Amen. For more on that, see Edward Tufte's "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint". It's no wonder Jeff Bezos insists on his subordinates bringing 2-3 page length essays, not slides, to decision meetings.

https://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/pi/2016_2017/phil/...

https://mondaynote.com/bezos-a-ceo-who-can-write-2f368ee3659...

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#172

Post by fmajid »

nonbirithm wrote: post #125

The SF product designers have the power to influence billions, but there are no consequences. So long as there are no consequences, we'll keep asking questions and merely propising these hypothetical limiters to prevent the world from being distracted. I have a feeling that the mechanisms of addiction are tied to evolved human instinct, and we will have to essentially fight back against our own genes to have any chan…

They don't have any power in this area. Those big companies hire industrial psychologists and neuroscientists to calculate precisely how often notifications should be issued to give you that little squirt of dopamine and be hooked. The notifications are not an accident, they are by design.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#173

Post by sillysaurusx »

dredmorbius wrote: post #157

In the 8 years that have elapsed since this pitch was made at Google, one conclusion is absolutely crystal clear: the industry has as little self-regulatory control over its use of such dark patterns as the public has over avoiding them. Regulation, taxation, and where necessary, criminalisation, are obvious and necessary. I'll note that for once, the patterns are not entirely synonymous with massive tech monopolies,…

Criminalization of dark patterns?

It’s not impossible to imagine — intentionally tricking a user is sometimes called fraud — but I’m not sure we’ve thought through the implications of criminalizing website design.

The biggest companies are the ones least affected by regulation, because they can invest resources into complying. Small startups sometimes can’t. A teenager in their bedroom usually can’t. And that’s no small loss.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#174

Post by hinkley »

Zelphyr wrote: post #90

All I've heard for the past 12+ years is "engagement". The singular focus on that one word to the exclusion of everything else is astounding to me. As if it is some magic incantation on the part of BizDev (or whatever they're called these days) that instantly transmogrifies users into profits. At one company I worked at, we had a digital product that was part of a suite of services our company provided. It was useful…

Engagement is a number you can game. Makes me wonder if they have their 'gamification' and 'game theory' wires crossed.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#175

Post by hinkley »

beachy wrote: post #126
Zelphyr wrote: post #90

All I've heard for the past 12+ years is "engagement". The singular focus on that one word to the exclusion of everything else is astounding to me. As if it is some magic incantation on the part of BizDev (or whatever they're called these days) that instantly transmogrifies users into profits. At one company I worked at, we had a digital product that was part of a suite of services our company provided. It was useful…

In a similar vein, I've discussed with customers why it's not a good idea to slavishly follow conversions, in our case on our hosted corporate careers site product. If job seekers are not well matched to a job, then we don't want them applying (i.e. a conversion)! That wastes everyone's time and good will. Instead, we want them to leave the process as quickly as possible. It's not unknown to have one person at the cu…

There's a point though, where you are telegraphing perfectly good reasons someone would not want to work for you while they are desperate to fill positions even if it means tricking people into working there.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#176

Post by hinkley »

suyash wrote: post #158
Zelphyr wrote: post #90

All I've heard for the past 12+ years is "engagement". The singular focus on that one word to the exclusion of everything else is astounding to me. As if it is some magic incantation on the part of BizDev (or whatever they're called these days) that instantly transmogrifies users into profits. At one company I worked at, we had a digital product that was part of a suite of services our company provided. It was useful…

At my previous company the magic word was "consumption" and goal for everyone seem to be drive consumption of our services at any cost. Now you can understand what that would lead to. User preferences and best interest is generally last thing on everyone's mind.

Consumption just makes me think this person has tuberculosis.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#178

Post by hinkley »

perihelions wrote: post #103
cmehdy wrote: post #2

For other readers: this seems to be an internal google presentation made public to tell engineers to respect users' attention. I guess as a user of the website it didn't respect my attention enough to make me want to click through the whole thing. I dropped out after twenty or so clicks, having read less and less stuff after a few slides.

If anyone wants the plain text transcription of the slides, this site appears to have that: https://digitalwellbeing.org/googles-internal-digital-wellbe... > "A Call to Minimize Distraction and Respect Users’ Attention." > "by Tristan Harris." > "I’m concerned about how we’re making the world more distracted. And my goal with this presentation is to create a movement at Google to create a new design ethic that aims t…

Wait, isn't Tristan Harris pseudo-famous for walking/running away from Google and starting a tech ethics company?

He's one of the stars of the Social Dilemma, right?

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#179

Post by Swenrekcah »

Stratoscope wrote: post #143
Zelphyr wrote: post #90

All I've heard for the past 12+ years is "engagement". The singular focus on that one word to the exclusion of everything else is astounding to me. As if it is some magic incantation on the part of BizDev (or whatever they're called these days) that instantly transmogrifies users into profits. At one company I worked at, we had a digital product that was part of a suite of services our company provided. It was useful…

I hate "engagement". I am a weird person. When I used to go to a movie theater, I stayed and watched the credits at the end. There would be some closing music, and maybe a few outtakes. It was always interesting to see how many people it took to make a movie and what they all did. A nice way to unwind and acknowledge everyone who created the movie. Lately I've been watching The Sopranos on Amazon. As soon as the end…

I don’t use Amazon but some of the services I use even minify the video and put up a next video countdown — before the episode has ended.

Probably the start of credits is automatically determined (guessed at) there based on percentage completed with a minimum absolute time.

In any case - pretty annoying.

Re: A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013)

#180

Post by grecy »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #173
dredmorbius wrote: post #157

In the 8 years that have elapsed since this pitch was made at Google, one conclusion is absolutely crystal clear: the industry has as little self-regulatory control over its use of such dark patterns as the public has over avoiding them. Regulation, taxation, and where necessary, criminalisation, are obvious and necessary. I'll note that for once, the patterns are not entirely synonymous with massive tech monopolies,…

Criminalization of dark patterns? It’s not impossible to imagine — intentionally tricking a user is sometimes called fraud — but I’m not sure we’ve thought through the implications of criminalizing website design. The biggest companies are the ones least affected by regulation, because they can invest resources into complying. Small startups sometimes can’t. A teenager in their bedroom usually can’t. And that’s no sm…

We've made laws against plenty of thing in the advertising world.

- In Australia advertising cigarettes is illegal.

- In New Zealand billboards are illegal.

- In Australia there are very strict "truth in advertising laws" and breaking them has big penalties.

If we really care enough about this issue, we could absolutely make laws preventing certain dark patterns on the web. Given it seems likely that all commerce will move online in the next decade, it starts to be more important than those old modes of advertising I mentioned above.

Post reply on HN