Request for comments regarding topics to be discussed at Dark Patterns workshop

Post by zepto » Mon, May 03, 2021, 2:52 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #371

zepto wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this a dark pattern? It really just seems like a design disagreement. If we’re going to call any design we don’t like a ‘dark pattern’, then the term becomes meaningless. I mean to many people here commercial software is all a ‘dark pattern’ because they prefer FOSS. But this isn’t what ‘dark patterns’ means. Generally it’s about tricking people into agreeing to things based on false beliefs, or making things…

It's a dark pattern because the usual reason is to be able to gather more data from the user, and to limit user control. By that notion I would say any design decision that helps the company while harming the user is a dark pattern.

Post by nightpool » Mon, May 03, 2021, 3:17 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #288

jeremy_wiebe wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is commonly referred to as a “soft ask.” The reasons for it are not always nefarious. On some platforms you cannot provide any commentary on why you want to send push notifications and so the soft ask provides a way to give more context on the next (real) permission dialog. I’m not saying this isn’t abused all over, but when used effectively it can provide the user with more information to decide if they want to…

I'm not referring to "soft asks". The dark pattern is creating a fake dialog that mimics the real system dialog in order to mislead, and circumvent a feature designed to protect users from spam/abuse. Telling a user why they're about to get a permissions dialog, and displaying a real system dialog, is obviously not a dark pattern. They're common as hell, but I can't seem to find a live example of what I'm talking abo…

Post by zepto » Mon, May 03, 2021, 3:34 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #414

zepto wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean that all apps that can’t also be used via the web are a ‘dark pattern’? I ask because I can easily imagine that if most customers are using apps, they might choose to remove functionality from the website rather than maintain it, just because it’s not worth it.

It can be used via the web, but it hides those features from you. If you're on a system where the desktop app cannot be installed, it reveals those features again. It's not that the features don't exist at all in the web version, they do but are hidden if you're capable of installing the app.

Post by sizzle » Mon, May 03, 2021, 3:36 PM UTC

Post by zepto » Mon, May 03, 2021, 3:37 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #514

zepto wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a dark pattern because the usual reason is to be able to gather more data from the user Is it? This seems like something you can’t know without corporate espionage. It really could be as simple as wanting to focus support on one platform. I agree that data gathering and surveillance capitalism is pretty much evil. However to just assume that’s all every decision is about makes us incapable of understanding the…

When the "app" in question is essentially a less accessible web page, then I think it's safe to assume something shady is going on. To be clear, I'm mostly talking about apps that are just a collection of views for a remote API. The only valid reason I can think of for these kinds of apps is because you're an ios/android developer and you're not good at making webpages. In that case, the best tool is the one you know…