
Dark Patterns - User Interfaces Designed to Trick People - kjhughes
http://darkpatterns.org/
======
abalone
The worst mainstream example of this I know of is PayPal.

Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your
credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better for
them).

Bank withdrawals carry a risk of overdraft fees, have fewer consumer
protections, and lack the rewards programs and other benefits of cards. But
they cost less for PayPal. Merchants don't pay any less though -- it's how
PayPal makes money.

Each and every time it defaults to bank withdrawals. You have to hit "Change"
to select your card, every time. There's no way to change the default to your
card. The only reason for this UI is to steer customers away from their best
interests.

~~~
dangrossman
> Their entire business is predicated on steering you away from using your
> credit or debit card (better for you) to a direct bank withdrawal (better
> for them).

You're being hyperbolic, or don't know what predicated means. This defaulting
to bank transfers is a relatively recent thing in their history; they've been
profitable for more than 10 years without that. Their fees are also sufficient
to make a profit on credit card transactions, so their business would not fail
should everyone opt-out of paying by ACH.

There are reasons for PayPal to want you to use ACH over a credit card beyond
simply increasing profits, too. They're just as much victims of credit card
fraud as their merchants. It's the card networks' fault that almost anyone in
the world can pick up a Visa/MasterCard card, use it to buy something on eBay,
then charge back the payment after they get the item. PayPal's the one getting
the chargeback, and they're not exempt from the card networks' requirements on
maximum chargeback rates. It's an existential threat to their business, always
has been.

~~~
Amadou
_This defaulting to bank transfers is a relatively recent thing in their
history;_

I've had a paypal account since before Ebay bought them and they've always
used sneaky user interface tricks to push customers into using bank transfers
over credit cards. It was the first thing I noticed about them after signing
up.

~~~
Stratoscope
That's right, PayPal has _always_ worked this way. In fact, it's only fairly
recently that it let me switch to a credit card without putting up a warning
page about all the benefits I'd get by using my checking account instead of a
credit card.

------
harrybr
Hi, I'm the guy who started darkpatterns.org. It's nice to see it popping up
on HN every now and then. We're actually looking for contributors to help edit
and update the content. If anyone is interested, drop us a line (contact
details on the site). It's intended to be a community project and we'd love to
see a lot more faces and names on the about page.

~~~
dredmorbius
My comments: I'm _that guy_ who uses NoScript/ScriptSafe to disable JS on most
sites. Took me _several minutes_ to figure out what combination of hosts I had
to enable to play your slideshow.

My suggestion: find a simpler tool to display your slideshow.

Otherwise: a pretty decent collection of horrors.

I'll also note I'm _that guy_ who generally avoids shopping online if at all
possible. I'll do a lot of online research, but prefer patronizing local
stores if possible, and paying cash. Why? Because:

\- You know what you're getting when you buy it.

\- When the deal is done the deal is done. No late-hit fees or follow-on
solicitations.

\- Generally a much easier returns policy, should that be necessary.

Yes, for some items, there's less choice (though you can special order a great
deal of stuff), and there are some things I will purchase online (air travel
on the rare occasions I feel it utterly necessary to humiliate myself before
airport security).

~~~
diminoten
It's completely unreasonable to ask someone to change their website because
_you_ disable JavaScript.

~~~
dhimes
But it's perfectly reasonable to let someone know that the website might be
broken for those to whom it is most likely to appeal. A more precise
suggestion about how to fix it would have been nice, however.

~~~
diminoten
I disagree with the assertion that this website will most appeal to people who
turn off JavaScript on websites intentionally.

And it's not useful to be informed that your website won't work if a critical
component is turned off. It just isn't.

I'd even go so far as to say that people who disable JavaScript should be
ignored entirely.

~~~
dhimes
Those who know/have cause to/have manifestation of paranoia that manifests as
turn off javascript completely are certainly more likely to see the appeal for
the slide show. I only made it about halfway through. Not that it's not an
important topic, but not my top priority right now. A syllabus would have been
useful so that I may see if I have missed something without having to spend
another 10 minutes.

It can be quite useful for someone to make a suggestion that can make the
website have larger appeal. It just can be. I count my suggestion for a
syllabus as one.

But as a stronger example, aljazeera.com recently started redirecting ips from
the US to the subdomain america.aljazeera.com. I couldn't get around it
without a proxy. I wrote them an email suggesting they make the old site
("english") an option from the front page (I pointed to CNN.com as an
example). They wrote me back saying they changed it and, when I went there,
they even had a pop-up that allowed me to have the english site as my default.
They had deliberately put in the functionality but didn't realize that some of
us wanted their European coverage, not their America coverage.

In this case maybe the site will offer alternative formats. Maybe they hadn't
thought of it.

I also have sites that ignore non-javascript enabled browsers- but they are
web-apps and are explicit about the need for js. If I had a normal site with a
widget that broke for certain people I very well might take such a comment
into serious consideration. It is more helpful, as I said earlier, if such
criticism also suggests something that might work well. Otherwise it just
sounds like bitching.

------
matho
There's a dichotomy here on HN: Best marketing practice generally praises
upselling and A/B testing conversions to increase sales and profits.

But, taking these to a natural conclusion typically results in exactly the
Dark Patterns we see here: where users are tricked or misled into agreeing to
things they might not if they were offered clear, open and full disclosure
upfront.

We can identify dark patterns - but in many cases, these are here because they
work. At least, large international businesses such as RyanAir believe that
they have a positive outcome which overwhelms any damage to the brand.

I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but
viable/competitive businesses?

~~~
dragonwriter
> I would like to know: how can we resolve these two ideas and run ethical but
> viable/competitive businesses?

All other things being equal, you can't. If there are dark patterns that
empirically do increase competitiveness in the market of interest at the cost
of violating things you hold to be ethical principles, you aren't going to be
competitive without employing them unless you have some other non-duplicated
market-relevant advantage that compensates for the disadvantage of ethics,
unless you can change the market context to eliminate the effectiveness of the
dark patterns.

~~~
darushimo
I think you're right here, but the qualifier "all things being equal" can't be
taken lightly. Rarely if never are "all things equal." I also don't think a
shift in the market context is necessary. We already have a market place where
people who feel tricked or duped will have a lower opinion of the company
doing the duping. dark patterns have a bad edge to them too--very few of them,
when noticed by the user, leave the user actually feeling good about how they
were duped.

This kinda reminds me of the talk PG gave at 2008 start up school titled "Be
Good."
([http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html) or
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7K0vRUKXKc))
He outlines many ways why it's not merely ethically appropriate to be good,
but also a strategically superior approach to running a startup. Ease of use,
simplicity, trustworthiness--these are important qualities of a biz's
reputation, both internally and in public perception. And Dark patterns tend
to harm that reputation.

Edit: Addendum--obviously there are monopolies or monopoly-like situations
where reputation isn't important.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I also don't think a shift in the market context is necessary.

 _If_ the dark patterns empirically work, _then_ a market context shift is
necessary.

> We already have a market place where people who feel tricked or duped will
> have a lower opinion of the company doing the duping. dark patterns have a
> bad edge to them too--very few of them, when noticed by the user, leave the
> user actually feeling good about how they were duped.

If they had enough of a "bad edge" that they didn't actually work to increase
the returns realized by a business--then they wouldn't be an issue, as there'd
be no incentive to use them.

~~~
PeterisP
1) Dark patterns do empirically work, that's the whole point.

2) Market won't magically shift - they work based on homo sapiens basic
psychology, and that won't change so soon. However, dark patterns can (and
are) reduced by making them illegal - effective consumer protection / truthful
advertising laws can mitigate them. For example, if 'I agree' opt-out boxes
are legally considered invalid, then it makes sense to use opt-in
subscriptions; similarly for other [mis]representations.

------
BonoboBoner
Thanks to the author for including RyanAir's awful booking reservation
website. This piece of garbage is filled with traps and puzzles in order to
sneak additional costs onto you. God I hate this carrier a well as the world's
"cheaper is better" attitude.

~~~
victoriap
How does it compare to Godaddy checkout?

~~~
eCa
Godaddy is basically scrolldown+click correct button three times.

Ryanair is trap upon trap. Radiobuttons and checkboxes all over the place, and
if you forget to confirm not wanting a bag you have to start over on that page
and hit all the right settings _again_. Multiply that five-six times...

(And I wouldn't be surprised if Parsons and O'Leary are buddies.)

------
tsunamifury
One of the most Pavlovian I've encountered is in InAppPurchases. A confirm
button will be repeated in the same corner of a dialog box 9 out of 10 times,
but the 10th time it will be replaced with a single-click purchase.

Basically the UI Is set up to purposefully hotswap to confuse the user into
accidental purchases.

I've also seen purchase buttons placed extremely near edges in order to
capture edge gestures and convert them into purchases.

Used on several of gamelofts latest free to play games.

~~~
dylangs1030
Yep. Single click purchases shouldn't be utilized as much on mobile devices.
The state of mobile apps is such that it's already not intensive to get to a
checkout page where you buy something; it's not like Amazon where you might
jump through 4-5 pages of confirmations and it's useful to seasoned buyers.
Apps are so much smaller (comparatively) than entire websites that really you
just need to tap a button from the options/main menu and then get to the
selection area before payment. There's no address to put it, or shipping
details that a "one-tap" could bypass and expediate.

I think whoever first thought, "Let's port one-click purchases to mobile!"
either was being disingenuous or was only successful because it was used in an
unintended, quasi-fraudulent way.

------
jka
Open question: as a startup grows and matures, even if it is originally
entirely designed with honest user objectives in mind, where usability and
simplicity are paramount, at some point there will be calls to increase
revenues - either in response to declining growth, market saturation, or
simply to maintain existing growth.

Is there any way to structure the incentives of a business to prevent this
from happening as a business grows?

Intuitively there is an argument that maintaining simplicity will improve
word-of-mouth and conversion rates, but in reality it (unfortunately, perhaps)
absolutely is the case that revenue can be massively increased by introducing
all kinds of additional advertising, up/cross-sells, and ultimately, dark
patterns.

~~~
ArtDev
Dark patterns are a short-term tradeoff. Ultimately, though your customers
will resent you.

Its easy for stakeholders to say "So what? We loose a few customers!"

However, your company really might be loosing a potential investor, a
potential business partner, a potential star hire or a potential product
champion.

Ambitious companies don't use dark patterns but dying companies do.

~~~
jka
I used to believe this - but once you reach a certain scale and number of
users, they do not notice small things - especially if they are average
everyday people.

We are all hyper-sensitive to design, functionality, behaviour because we
build and make decisions about technology, but at the end of the day most
people have 5-to-15 minutes to use your product during or between other work
and conversations.

Investors will likely not be carefully analyzing your UI, unless they have a
lot of time - most of their decision will be based on conversations with your
top-level executive team and the information provided therein.

Star hires is a potential one - I can definitely imagine that a lot of very
savvy designers and engineers might be put off by manipulative design
decisions - but ultimately they may care more about the workplace environment
that you claim as a company, the opportunity to be part of a growing business,
etc.

I'm a touch on the pessimistic side with this one but these are my
perceptions, partly based on experience and partly based on observing startup
businesses evolve over time.

------
aestra
I am not sure if it is a dark pattern, but I hate it. Hidden tax/shipping
costs. I have to go through the entire check out process, which is usually
multiple screens, and requires a credit card to continue to find out how much
shipping will be at the final confirmation screen. Is this done on purpose so
they think people are already invested in the checkout, so they won't abandon
it due to high shipping? Or notice shipping? I don't understand why not just
give me an estimate based on fuzzy location before I start the checkout
process, so I don't waste my time if the total cost is too high.

------
dclowd9901
And yet, AirBnb was tricking people into using their service by proxying
machine generated emails through fake female personalities to bootstrap their
service.

I think the real trick is to dark pattern in a way that isn't
offensive/egregiously negative to the customer.

------
bartkappenburg
I guess we need to make an distinction between short and long term conversion
optimization.

How does a new and unexperienced customer at Ryanair feel when he sees the
final amount he has to pay? It's obviously a good first conversion, but does
it pay off a the second and third etc conversion for ryanair? Does he
recommend the service?

He has other choices and the one that tricked him doesn't feel that good
anymore...

Ergo: ryanair is optimizing short term conversion.

~~~
ArtDev
This is a problem with metrics in general.

Short-term metrics are easy but long-term metrics are hard because of
complexity.

Also, quantifying human emotion (UX) is also hard.

It seems like great companies have to rely on ethics, company culture and
vision to make due in the absence of long-term metrics.

------
guhemama2
There a nice book on "evil design patterns" called Evil by Design [1]. It's
interesting knowing how we are manipulated (and how we can manipulate others,
not necessarily for bad reasons) through design.

1- [http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Design-Interaction-Lead-
Temptatio...](http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Design-Interaction-Lead-
Temptation/dp/1118422147)

------
reddit_clone
Recently I find it annoying that the button I don't want to click is all
bright, blue and defaulted and the button I eventually want to click looks
gray as if it is actually disabled.

Even google does this.

~~~
kalleboo
_Especially_ Google do this (everywhere they try to rope you into Google+)

------
zsstor
Cable providers have been the worst with this in my experience. No matter what
you do it takes an ungodly amount of time to cancel service.

There was a great Behavioral Economics course on Coursera taught by Dan Ariely
that touched on methods like these, as well as subtler ones. I think the slide
on Organ Donation was from him.
[https://class.coursera.org/behavioralecon-001/class](https://class.coursera.org/behavioralecon-001/class)

~~~
rubyn00bie
Preface: I really like what the site is showing, the below is more food for
thought, and perhaps a wee-bit of direction for those looking to persue it
deeper. Also forgive me, as it became time to proof read, it became beer time.

===========

I'm glad someone brought up behavioral economics...

Below I've pasted the abstract for the original paper, organ donor paper [1]:

"The well-documented shortage of donated organs suggests that greater effort
should be made to increase the number of individuals who decide to become
potential donors. We examine the role of one factor: the no-action default for
agreement. We first argue that such decisions are constructed in response to
the question, and therefore influenced by the form of the question. We then
describe research that shows that presumed consent increases agreement to be a
donor, and compare countries with opt-in (explicit consent) and opt-out
(presumed consent) defaults. Our analysis shows that opt-in countries have
much higher rates of apparent agreement with donation, and a statistically
significant higher rate of donations, even with appropriate statistical
controls. We close by discussing the costs and benefits associated with both
defaults as well as mandated choice"

1.) I think what the website is trying to illustrate, is more specific
instances where this is applied for bad (fair critique!). However, I think the
abstract above bring up an interesting question:

If the framing of an option(s) is causal [2] to it's propensity to be chosen;
can one really be upset that their indifference is manipulated?

I want to talk about the "good" application of this which is (arguably?)
donating organs. It saves lives, and as it turns out, is dependent strictly on
our indifference [3]. I suppose I'm inviting criticism, but what's wrong with
that? The idea of saving a life, by most, is considered noble [4]. Even more
so, if it was, indeed, important for us to conciously decide on-- why wouldn't
we [5]?

If it said:

"Check the box to not be shot with a shotgun, at a distance of 3 feet, in the
face, immediately after you turn this in?"

... after a few incidents, social knowledge would spread of the option to
drive awareness. It's cost would be measured, most likely choosing
indifference would be greater than. I would like to propose the juxtaposition
of awareness, reaction, and marginal cost to us is quite large. The point: one
is important for us and one is not, the effort to spread awareness or be aware
is greater than the potential(?) gain.

In the case of these businesses framing options for increasing profits, not
that I think it's right [6], but is it really that dark? Aren't we essentially
indifferent to the costs? Is that reason enough to be upset? Have any of these
examples shown a cost which exceeds the cost of cognitively reasoning about
it? If they have, and you do not opt-out, is there reason to be upset since
the marginal utility of not-opting out is, matter of fact, greater to you,
than opting out.

2.) If the examples shown on "Dark Patterns" are evil to you:

learn about behavior economics and to spread the knowledge you gain.

Learn about the roots, not symptoms, because the amount of change/awareness
you'll be able to make is greater. Yes, it can be applied poorly, to decieve,
but it's also can be applied for good. Being aware will make you less
susceptible (not always, that's the gambler's fallacy) to mallace and probably
make you insist on it for good (e.g. organ donating).

A great Behavioral Economics paper, that also cites the original organ donor
work[1] is "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics"
by Daniel Kahneman [7].

I think the exploration, and awareness, of the application of framing (menu)
options is great. I just hope it doesn't stop there :)

[1] "Defaults and Donation Decisions" Author(s): Eric J. Johnson and Daniel G.
Goldstein Source:
[http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/fi...](http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/sites/decisionsciences/files/files/Defaults_and_Donation_Decisions_-
_Transplantation.pdf)

[2] Yeah I said it, causal. I ain't talkin' no correlations 'ere. It's like a
hypothesis but less complete ...it's actually for emphasis not a to say I
believe it's a physical law (ex. the speed of light).

[3] Using marginal utility is a way to remove indifference (I think it
[indifference] is too hard to meaningfully measure) while maintaining the same
conclusion. The marginal utility of filling out a form quickly, is greater
than spending time deeply analyzing the cost and benefits of such a choice...

[4] Noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles
and ideals. Source: Mac OS X Dictionary; definition. 2

[5] I find refuting this, in any sense, to be concerning and disheartening--
that is to suggest that a majority of people are inherently incapable. Should
that be the case then I propose we as a species are incapable and prone to
deciptive tactics. That would mean you too; you're no snowflake.

[6] I believe it's a symptom.

[7] "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics"
Author(s): Daniel Kahneman Source: The American Economic Review, Vol. 93, No.
5 (Dec., 2003), pp. 1449-1475

------
eevee
Many of these could just as easily be the result of really bad UI design,
especially when there are "technical constraints"—the RyanAir example in
particular reeks of an opt-out being jammed haphazardly into an existing form
to avoid adding another control.

Hanlon's Razor, yadda yadda. These patterns aren't any better if they're
accidents, of course, but there'd at least be a chance that the offending
company would fix them.

~~~
ArtDev
I used to work for a magazine who had specialists come in who recommended this
kind of crap.

This is not simply bad design.. these things are very deliberate and usually
controversial within these companies that implement these tactics.

Its a pretty standard story where Marketing is pushing for short term gains
while IT/Web is thinking about the big picture.

~~~
eevee
Oh, I don't doubt that it's sometimes—or even often—deliberate. But if a UI is
implemented badly, no one complains (because no one ever does), and the number
of purchases/signups/whatever goes up, why would anyone bother trying to "fix"
it?

~~~
ArtDev
Customer research brings it up.. if anyone is listening.

------
throwaway2048
A possible example of this is how the 'Clear Browsing Data' button in chrome
for android has been moved to an inconspicious location away from the other
settings, if you have an android device i invite you to see how easily you can
find it without looking it up.

~~~
Dylan16807
I fail to see what would be 'dark' in the first place about making it hard to
clear local browsing data on a single-user device.

~~~
jleader
Chrome is a web browser created (largely) by Google. Google makes their money
(largely) from web advertising. Web advertising is far more effective if you
can use things like cookies to decide what ads to show to people.

So the claim is that Google has an incentive to make it harder to clear local
browsing data than if they just considered it from the perspective of what
users would want.

------
ArtDev
I love the redesign of darkpatterns.org.

I am looking forward to the form to submit a dark pattern. Keep up the great
work!

------
gesman
GoDaddy is the grandpa of auto-optins and upsells, should of been mentioned
there.

