[gilgongo]

How does Harry Brignull get his dark patterns site covered so regularly? About once a year for the past decade, somebody does an article about it. Weird.

Anyway. I'm a designer and my work has even featured on his site (after he did some freelancing with us - cheeky begger). His implication that people like me sit around trying to making life harder for customers is complete bollocks. We don't. Businesses just don't. It's bad business and nobody would willing do it.

Usually (and I grant their might be a tiny number of exceptions) they have to do things crappily because of constraints beyond their control. It may seem malicious to the likes of a freelance design-and-run merchant like Brignull, but it's not. It can also just be clueless visual designers wanting to make things pretty at the expense of being usable. But mostly it's just hidden constraints.

But hey who cares. It's good rant material.

[Bartweiss]

I did notice that the most common 'trick question' is a setup where "accept our emails" and "accept third-party emails" have opposite checkbox behavior, and it's the same behavior system in every example. My first thought was that it's probably a quirk in some shared service/template, or else regulatory weirdness. Hanlon's Razor and all that.

But the claim that no one is intentionally annoying/scamming customers is a bit of a joke. Good businesses don't, and mistakes happen, but a lot of the entries on that site are obviously, consistently screwing their customers (RyanAir, anyone?) There are, in fact, entire businesses that exist to screw unsuspecting customers with rollover billing, data sales, and opt-outs. Among other things, if you're extracting value from customers once each and they don't know your company name, there isn't any consequence to mistreating them.

Broadly, I see three things on that site. There are failures of design and constraint, but there are also dark patterns (where you're basically sincere, but manipulating people with things like opt-outs), and a fair amount of straight-up abuse (where you have victims instead of customers).

[gilgongo]

A very small number of people may intentionally sit down to design systems that purposefully trick users into doing things they don't want to do. However, to lump that in as he does with a load of other things that are basically not being done from choice is silly. Yes, they are not 100% good things, but they are not actively malicious either. Intent. Culpability..

[benologist]

I think he gets a lot of attention because nobody likes to be exploited and that is our default status online.