説得力のあるデザイン:UX が悪になる時

Tinder という出会い系アプリは、ユーザーが(好みでない)相手を素早くスキップしやすいように設計されている。安易なふるい分け、あるいは弾みで同意するといった人間行動の結果、ユーザーは「もしかしたら好みかもしれない」相手を即座に拒否してしまうのだが、いったん実行した動作を取り消そうとすると追加料金が取られるという仕組みだ。このような例はインターネットのあちこちで見られる[N1] 。

原文は英語だけになります

Chauhan, V. (2015). 説得力のあるデザイン:UX が悪になる時. User Experience Magazine, 15(4).
Retrieved from http://uxpamagazine.org/persuasive-design/?lang=ja

6 Responses

  1. Tarun より:

    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 より:

    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 より:

    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 より:

    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 より:

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

  6. Tema Frank より:

    Interesting article. Ethics are not always clear-cut.

Leave a Reply to Tarun