A call to minimize distraction and respect users’ attention (2013) • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by cratermoon » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 8:39 PM UTC

Bjartr wrote: post #273

lamontcg wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> CAN-SPAM[0] does exactly that for US businesses. No, I said make it illegal, and I meant exactly that.

CAN-SPAM is a law. If you violate it, you are penalized by the legal code. That's fulfills my definition of "illegal", but clearly not yours. Mind sharing your definition so we're on the same page?

CAN-SPAM does not make spam (unsolicited email) illegal, it simply sets parameters for what's allowed and not. That's why, back in the day, we called it the "yes companies CAN go ahead and SPAM everyone" law, playing on the double meaning of 'can'.

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

#282

Post by beachy » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #259

beachy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

one could argue that your conversions are not defined well enough. Define conversion as a qualified lead. Or define conversion as a job application that results in a callback. Then you can go back to obsessing over conversions :-) Not enough people push back when a bad KPI is set.

It's a fair point, but really best practice would be to class a conversion as someone who applied for the job, was successful, and then performed at a high level for the next two years.

Not practical for many reasons and hard to convey to someone hunched over their Google analytics dashboard.

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

#283

Post by lamontcg » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 11:24 PM UTC

Bjartr wrote: post #278

lamontcg wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't send any marketing e-mail to anyone. Everyone is opted-out immediately and permanently. End the right that businesses think they have to endlessly distract people.

Would you still allow people to decide that they do want to get such email, or should people not be allowed to make that decision?

Due to dark patterns, I'd prefer to have it all banned. If you give corporations any kind of loophole they have shown that they're bad actors and will exploit it.

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

#284

Post by nireyal » Sun, Jul 11, 2021, 2:35 AM UTC

For how long are we going to moan and groan about companies doing this "to us"? Come on people, we're not helpless. We're far more powerful than the tech companies. I know all their tricks and literally wrote the book on how they get you "Hooked." These tactics are good, but they're not THAT good. See this article if you want to "hack back": https://www.nirandfar.com/distractions

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

#285

Post by Artistry121 » Fri, Jul 16, 2021, 3:53 AM UTC

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,…

I’d say that Apple has done an amazing job combating this and Google has made some strides.

This last WWDC shocked me with how tasteful it was in making devices more personal and respectful