설득적 디자인: 어떤 경우에 UX가 폐해가 될까요?

데이트 앱인 Tinder는 사용자들이 추천된 사람들을 빨리 거부할 가능성이 크도록 설계되어 있습니다. 재빨리 선별해내서 수락을 하는 것과 같은 인간의 행동 때문에 사용자들은 그들이 좋아할 수도 있을, 추천된 사람들을 성급하게 놓칩니다. 그러나 사용자들은 자신이 한 조치를 취소하려고 하면 추가로 비용이 듭니다. 이와 같은 예는 인터넷 상의 여러 웹사이트에서 발견할 수 있습니다.

전체 기사는 영어로만 제공됩니다.

Chauhan, V. (2015). 설득적 디자인: 어떤 경우에 UX가 폐해가 될까요?. User Experience Magazine, 15(4).
Retrieved from http://uxpamagazine.org/persuasive-design/?lang=KO

6 Responses

  1. Tarun 댓글:

    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 댓글:

    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 댓글:

    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 댓글:

    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 댓글:

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

  6. Tema Frank 댓글:

    Interesting article. Ethics are not always clear-cut.

Leave a Reply to Kalyna