劝导型设计:用户体验何时会成为邪恶?

Tinder 约会应用旨在让用户得以快速拒绝某人。依靠快速筛选和循循善诱等人类行为,用户可以快速解雇他们可能喜欢的人。但是,如果他们尝试撤销这些行为,却需要付出额外费用。像这种网站的例子在网络上比比皆是。

文章全文为英文版

Chauhan, V. (2015). 劝导型设计:用户体验何时会成为邪恶?. User Experience Magazine, 15(4).
Retrieved from http://uxpamagazine.org/persuasive-design/?lang=zh

6 Responses

  1. Tarun说道:

    Sir I totally agree with your views we as ux professional should stand for our users but keeping business needs in mind.

  2. Aral Balkan说道:

    As long as our approach to design is anthropological (us designing for ‘the other’), any talk of ethics is superficial at best; comparable to discussing ethics in factory farming (that is to say, better that we care about the issue than not but ignoring the actual source of the problem).

    If we want to practice design (that which empowers people and creates a more egalitarian and sustainable world) instead of decoration (that which perpetuates the traditional monopolistic power structures of neoliberalism/capitalism) then we must tackle the root of the issue: instead of a mostly homogenous privileged group designing for ‘the other’, we must create diverse design teams who design for themselves. Not only is this competitive advantage (as you cannot compete with a competent design team designing for themselves when you’re designing for a demographic you are not part of) but also it is fundamentally egalitarian in nature: a diverse team, designing for themselves can design for a diverse audience without engaging in antropological practices.

  3. Even Keal说道:

    I’m very happy to hear that Human Factors has a policy that allows UX professionals refuse projects on ethical grounds. UX professionals can easily find themselves at the forefront of deception.

    There have been scenarios where clients will bring UX professionals in to help with the effort to cover up or gloss over some very unethical practices. Basically make an “evil” practice feel like a “good” experience.

    I know of a UX designer who was assigned a consulting gig for Planned Parenthood and eventually asked to leave the project. In her case, she felt there was tremendous effort being put in to convince the public that abortion is somehow “healthcare”, questioning Planned Parenthoods ethics is somehow a “war on woman”, selling baby parts is “research” etc. The tools of this deception was “marketing”, “PR” and “Experience Design”.

    This is clearly using our UX superpowers for the wrong purpose. With great powers come great responsibilities!

  4. Jim Griesemer说道:

    Thank you for writing about this issue,Vikram. It needs to be discussed and not swept under the rug, as it has been done in the advertising industry for many years.

    To Kilna: No, we’re not talking about regulation. But, neither are we talking about ignoring the ethical issue. As UX professionals, we need to be speaking up and calling out unethical practices, just as Vikram is doing here and Harry Brignull has done with darkpatterns.org. I’ll also add that it’s more like there’s bunches of bad apples, not just one.

    To Tema: No, ethics are not *always* clear cut, but they certainly are more clear cut than most people are willing to believe. It’s not hard to know when you’re crossing the line by choosing deception over clarity.

    BTW: I have also written about this same topic in 2014 in a post I titled “User Experience’s Dark Side Raises Ethical Stakes” — http://beautifulinvisibility.com/?p=1

  5. Kalyna说道:

    Always a bad apple in the bunch! What’s the bottom line? More regulation?

  6. Tema Frank说道:

    Interesting article. Ethics are not always clear-cut.

Leave a Reply