
Guilt and Shame as a UI Design Element - samsolomon
http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/the-guilt-trip-as-a-user-interface-element
======
nailer
GQ citing their dancing starwars girl as 'award winning journalism' is a joke
GQ is making at its own expense. Leave it to buzzfeed to turn it into moral
outrage. This is one of the publications that got Tim Hunt fired for making an
obviously tongue in cheek mock-sexist remark to a conference of female
scientists who found it funny. [http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-
hunt-reporting-w...](http://unfashionista.com/2015/07/07/the-tim-hunt-
reporting-was-false-royal-society-please-give-him-due-process/)

------
iamthepieman
No thanks I already signed up/am a member but I'm on my
smartphone/laptop/friends device and I just want the content

No thanks I'm really in a hurry this looks really interesting I'll come back
later(I won't)

No thanks I'm just kind of randomly surfing while on the loo.

No thanks my adblocker went out of business/stopped working/I forgot I was in
private browsing mode I'm going to fix that right now.

No thanks I have 12000 unread emails from things like this and I don't feel
like setting up another filter and trying to decide if this goes in the misc
or business folders

No thanks i do not care about breeding labradoodles/cooking authentic Cajun
food/the latest tech news and deals I just need to figure out how to cut burs
out of my dogs hair/get a recipe for gumbo/figure out if anyone else is having
connection issues

------
joesmo
Interestingly enough, I just noticed this happening on websites that have been
doing it for years. Yes, some of these ads are in your face and you can't help
but notice them, but a lot of these ads are in the background. I call the ads
because to my mind (and to the mind of most people; see usability studies)
this garbage is just automatically tuned out except when it can't be. Whether
an actual ad was there or something that looks like an ad is absolutely
irrelevant. I'm not going to see it anyway. Which just makes the idiotic
messages that try to guilt and shame me more idiotic. For years (this is
hardly a new trend) I've been ignoring them. Even after I read them, I ignored
them and laughed at them.

Seriously, people let a fucking website tell them how to feel to the point
that it actually affects their feelings? Now that is a serious security
vulnerability that probably can't be patched.

------
striking
There's nothing wrong with what they call "guilting users." You're simply
wording the negative value proposition in a way that they might easily
empathize with. That way the user can best evaluate their options rather than
the "Subscribe/cancel" model.

If someone hates signing up for emails, you want to convince that person that
_this is the list to sign up for._ There's nothing shameful about selling a
product. If you think there is, you're not selling hard enough.

I'd recommend allowing a path that offers a limited experience, so they can at
least try your value prop before they buy it. It's hard to sell someone on
GQ's "award-winning journalism" if they've never read it before.

~~~
zepto
It seems that your view is that if someone falls prey to psychological
manipulation to do something that is not in their interests, or feels bad or
guilty if they resist, then that is purely their responsibility. This is a
sociopath's view of the world.

At this point you may not like the way what I just said is making you feel.

According to you, there's nothing wrong with that.

To address your point about empathy - empathy is a faculty we have for
understanding what other people feel like and thus be better able to live
together as social beings.

An advertising network doesn't feel anything. Making a machine present words
and images that induces feelings of empathy towards it is psychological
manipulation.

Whether this is wrong or not is of course open to debate, but let's at least
tell it like it is.

~~~
striking
So fictional books are psychological manipulation? If that's the case, then
the phrase "psychological manipulation" is so broadly defined as to be
completely useless.

And I'm not victim-blaming. Perhaps the consumer doesn't fully recognize the
benefits one quick and easy action could have on their lives. Your newsletter
could change everything! Why not actually try and sell that, rather than
giving unfeeling "Subscribe"/"don't" buttons?

I'm not a fan of the Whole Foods "would you like to give a dollar to charity
today" thing because it (accidentally or not) leverages social pressure to
convince people to give money. Social pressure is a different thing entirely,
and it does end up looking like a form of manipulation (although in this
context, a fairly weak one at that)

But to be unable to resist a couple of words on a screen? At that point, a
conversation would fall under "psychological manipulation". So I don't get it.
Am I still a sociopath?

~~~
zepto
Fictional books are not trying to get people to buy anything.

Messages designed to induce guilt are not explaining benefits.

If your mind doesn't make these distinctions then yes, you may be a sociopath.

~~~
striking
I'm assuming that the person making the offer lacks malicious intent. And I
pretty highly doubt these messages create guilt. "No thanks, I don't want to
protect my skin" is something I damn well can imagine saying.

The act of closing these ads is a laugh to me, and I don't feel a twinge of
guilt about it. "Haha fuck you, I totally would pay full price rather than
hear another word from your company" is how I feel towards the ads.

If it's something I care about (e.g. blood drives or charity events) then I'm
okay with a "guilting" proposition. I'm not actually guilty, and they're not
making money. They're honestly just trying to get more people to do something.

It is my honest and fervent opinion that, when used _in moderation_ , adding
flavor text to help the user picture the positive and negative outcomes of an
action helps both the user and the person serving the user.

As guilt is a subjective thing that people experience and define differently,
it seems to me that neither of our opinions have grounding in fact, and are
based on our own perspectives and opinions.

Your opinion may differ, and I respect that. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm
saying I don't agree.

~~~
zepto
We certainly disagree, however this isn't really about your or my subjective
experience - it is about whether these kinds of tacting induce guilt in other
people.

I take it you believe they do not, despite the contradicting evidence of
people here supporting the idea that they do.

I agree that not everyone will feel guilt at each particular message, but I am
saying you are wrong if you believe that none of these messages induce guilt
in anyone.

