• audaxdreik@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      125
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Almost as bad as the “Enable new feature? / Not now” options

      No, NOT not now; never. Never.

      • salt@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        79
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Would you like to disable the ‘Not Now’ option?”

        [ Not Now ]     [ Just Once ]

      • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        1 year ago

        OMFG, the “not now” option (also disguised as an “ask later” button) makes me want to break things. I’m seeing this happening everywhere!

        Load up an app? REVIEW THIS APP! (YES/NOT NOW)

        Log into your bank account? SIGN UP FOR E-BILLING! (YES/ASK LATER)

        Want to order something online? SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER!! (OK/REMIND ME LATER)

        Want to pay your utility bill? RATE OUR SERVICE! (OK/REMIND ME LATER)

        🤬

        • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          1 year ago

          Load up an app? REVIEW THIS APP! (YES/NOT NOW)…

          Want to pay your utility bill? RATE OUR SERVICE! (OK/REMIND ME LATER)

          My policy is: Apps that interrupt me to ask for a review will get a 1 star review. I’ll add comments about wanting to be left the fuck alone and please sthaaap with the thirsty pop ups and emails - if it is convenient to do so. Hulu keeps bugging me on my XBox and I’m not entering an explanation with a fucking remote control (WTF ARE THEY THINKING?) so they just get 1 star with no explanation. Fuck’em. They asked for my opinion so they’re getting it.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “For more inf…” hyperlink that doesnt expand text even if there is space and takes you straight to the buy page.

  • Dasnap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would anyone ever actually fall for this?

    “Well I’ve clicked the button now, might as well put my card info in I guess!”

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly! It’s a lose-lose situation. Even if you misclick, then you’ll realize you’ve been conned.

    • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      happened to me once on some website, “one click buy,” I learned the hard way how serious they were about that. Don’t need to enter your card information when you’ve already set your phone up with permissions to access your bank account in one click. DANGER!

  • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Software Engineers and UX/UI Designers need a code of ethics, like yesterday.

    Yes, business is ultimately to blame, but those folks are beyond saving - they will never ever ever put the brakes on an initiative that could make more money legally. Unless there’s blowback from an ethics board / professionals in charge of implementing their dark patterns.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why include software engineers in this? In the large companies I’ve worked for, the people with the title “software engineer” have absolutely nothing to do with the actual design of something like this; we just get handed a spec and are expected to implement it as is. In smaller companies I always did one-person projects where I handled every aspect of the development process including UX and UI, but my title was not “software engineer”. Are you expecting the engineers to refuse to implement a “feature” like this on principle or something?

      • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The title’s meaning and weight can vary. So can the responsibilities and impact of an individual engineer’s decisions. But there is a longstanding tradition of engineers as gatekeepers for quality and the ethical application of their skills.

        For instance, licensed engineers in Canada have a duty to the following code of ethics. To quote the header:

        Registrants shall conduct themselves with integrity, in an honourable and ethical manner. Registrants shall uphold the values of truth, honesty and trustworthiness and safeguard human life and welfare and the environment. In keeping with these basic tenets, registrants shall: […]

        • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s why in Canada virtually everyone is a “Software Developer”. Same job across in the state you’ll be called an “engineer”.

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are you expecting the engineers to refuse to implement a “feature” like this on principle or something?

        Yes. Or at least question it.

        Just like I’d expect a civil engineer to question the plans for that bridge they’re building if it seems like it’s not up to spec.

        Or like I’d expect an electrical engineer to revise the plans for a circuit that poses an electrocution risk.

        Why would software engineers be held to a different standard?

        • MellowSnow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m a software dev. Given, the shit I work on right now is all internal. But I question the hell out of stupid decisions like this. I’m sure things get questioned on these public-facing apps all the time. But at the end of the day, the business gets what the business wants. Inevitably, we don’t have the final say on it, even if/when we push back. And we definitely do.

          We should be holding the execs and business leaders that are making these stupid decisions accountable.

        • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I see you never worked in a developer team. My current boss once in 1995 opened a geocities page about someones poodle and favorite girl-band. After 3 minutes on that page he proudly declared “I now know everything there is to know about HTML and user interface design, and never have to see another website ever again!”

          Since then, he is making designs, and the tiniest amout of criticism or improvements (“maybe we should have a placeholder telling users what format we expect here.”, “Can we use a date-input instead of a textfield here?”) is shot down with a 5 minute yelling how “the users just have to learn this” and “we always have done it this way!” or “if the user is too stupid, he should read the manual” (which is incomplete and still features windows XP+IE6 screenshots). There is an option in the bug tracking system which says “user error/user training required”, but if you read it it’s really all huge usabillity issues because people cannot figure it out, and the system has no helpfull error messages…

          • Elderos@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We did something similar with our APIs. It broke every conventions and expectations of the product and the language, and of course didn’t follow any logical good practices. Man did the boss love to tell me users had to read the doc anyway so we might just as well do whatever. Then later on when issues arose and I suggested making better APIs I was hit by some dull remark about how we shouldn’t violate the principle of least-surprise by going a different direction. Bitch are you kidding me? You broke that very principe in the first place by making grotesquely alien APIs.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Software Engineers and UX/UI Designers had a code of ethics. Digital Research specifically created a code of ethics. (I think it was Gary Kildall who did it.) The code of ethics recommended companies that make OSes should stay separate from companies that make applications. It was Bill fuck-the-community-I-want-money Gates that ignored all that stuff in order to seek market domination (and monopoly power).

      A combination of regulatory pressure, hackers, and enshittification from within has done a lot to keep Big Mike from seizing the whole market, but it’s gotten pretty brutal multiple times in the last two-plus decades.

    • SleepingTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do, and it really depends on the entire team being ethical to make it effective. If you have an unethical boss, they’ll just go find someone else to implement their ideas.

      • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah it’s relative… and it depends on your seniority a bit. I do feel like everyone has the capacity to at least question an unethical practice if they see it. Often that’s enough to trigger a tickle of shame in the person putting forward the idea, or at least shift the culture incrementally forward.

        For instance when I was working on marketing integrations, I eventually insisted that we track explicit consent, and provide an unsubscribe option on all emails and text messages going out. If I’d just “hacked it out” like the harried director of marketing expected, well, who knows

        Eventually that same director took great pride in his “clean lists,” so it was clear that he internalized some of the ethics.

  • numberfour002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    To me, sans any context, the asshole aspect of the design is that there’s no explicit button and comparable button to decline the offer / close the window/pop-up/whatever. Though it’s also very possible that this was specifically cropped so as to exclude context such as the existence of a close button or other clues that might offer some rationale for this design.

    I don’t see the Buy now button as being disguised as anything, personally. This just looks like there’s standard theming in place where one button is classed as a primary button and the other as a secondary or perhaps default button. Pretty vanilla stuff and a common approach when there are choices like this.

    • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes the cropping is suspicious but still it’s asshole design because two buttons next to each other should offer two opposite choices. These two buttons just force the user to get the product.

      • numberfour002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I may be misunderstanding what you’re saying, but taken at face value, I do not agree that two buttons always have to offer opposite choices. But, that also didn’t seem to be the point that OP is making, which was that the button is somehow disguised.

    • zeze@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, usually the button they want you to press is the one that’s colored.

      If they want you to buy something, why make that the colorless one?

      • 1995ToyotaCorolla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        usually the button they want you to press is the one that’s colored

        That’s the point. They’re abusing that common knowledge. They know that you’ll glance at the buttons and in that split second, assume the white button is “cancel”, and click that. They’re hoping some of those errant clicks turn into sales

  • LolaCat@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So their isn’t even a “no” option? I’m assuming theirs an X at the top of the window but that’s still scummy either way.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s called “secondary” in Bootstrap, and “Buy Now” is legitimately the secondary option here.

    It’s relatively rare a person would rather just buy without trying first.

    Cancel would be the “danger” class in Bootstrap, and I would bet it’s the color of the actual “Never Mind” option somewhere in the larger version of this screenshot. My hunch is there’s an X where you can simply close this window. Unless it’s an app that requires a subscription to use in which case the close option is to close the app.

    • black0ut@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fun fact. When you open Microsoft Edge for the first time, and there’s no clear button to deny it permission to access your info, Alt F4 doesn’t work.

      I’ve never seen an app ignore Alt F4 like that (I didn’t know it was even possible), and it freaked me out a bit the first time.

  • speaker_hat@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This scam is actually works when someone is not concentrated, and just want to click to move forward

    • PoolloverNathanOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      (and also works when concentrated - immediately after making this post I went back and still fell for it)

  • moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    hanlon’s razor man, someone had to think of the color scheme in the first place and someone could easily forget it

  • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Software Engineers and UX/UI Designers need a code of ethics, like yesterday.

    Yes, business is ultimately to blame, but those folks are beyond saving - they will never ever ever put the brakes on an initiative that could make more money legally. Unless there’s blowback from an ethics board / professionals in charge of implementing their dark patterns.

  • jacktherippah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    This actually seems pretty common nowadays. Anyway, just read first before you click any buttons lol.