I love that. Because interaction is a form of dialog, a push and pull. So in a dialog you can intend to inform or mislead.
-
-
-
I also think that there is active (overt, detectable) and passive (covert, subtle) misleading. Design can actively mislead or passively confuse or misdirect through obfuscation. Both are malicious, but they are not perceived as equally so.
-
The passive covert thing now occurs in a lot of just-in-time bite sized interactions that are fed through algorithms. It’s about moving the needle a tiny bit.
-
A challenge in designing for AI and ML systems is that we no longer know the paths to outcomes or even what the outcomes might be. We're not designing for goals - we have to learn how to design for systems of potential conditions and contingencies. 1/
-
All these little unclear, vague, ambiguous, obfuscated moments are algorithmically created or selected and assembled dynamically into sequences of ephemeral experiences, any one of which may be innocuous, but which are collectively malicious. How do we design to avoid that? 2/
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
YES. I was actually just talking to a colleague the other day about using the concept of consent to frame UX decisions. Our conversation was around taking control away from the user or trying to anticipate their needs, but I love how you've applied the idea to all interactions.
-
The tendency is to assume that because people have interacted with something that they have provided consent, but that's backwards. We should be asking if they know, understand, and predict well enough to consent BEFORE interacting. 1/
-
Most users understand in retrospect - after they have seen the outcomes of their interaction. User regret (and frustration and anger) are signs that they didn't really know the consequences of their interactions and the product purpose and intent. 2/
-
Implied consent is even more challenging when consequences come much later, long after the interaction and after the associations among interaction, moment, context, and product have been forgotten. Things done today blow up years later, so was implied consent sufficient? 3/
-
Definitely! The obvious implication is for financial services, but social sharing probably has more of an effect. Apps that share your activity on Facebook... The user passively gave permission. And that's usually just slightly embarrassing rather than damaging /1
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve been a UXD for 6 years. I’m still baffled at how little we discuss perception and cognition.
-
I get to discuss it every day. Then again, I'm nearly always the one bringing it up... ;)
-
I need to get at bringing it up I think. When I do I kill the discussion

-
My early mistake was to make it sound academic and pedantic, but when I switched to talk about the product and business from that perspective (more like the way we turn research into practical recommendations and strategic guidance), the discussions became more productive.
-
I'll keep that in mind, thanks.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
is there a better way to map this than process/task diagrams?
-
I don't diagram it. I ask it. I DO it. Over, and over, and over, and over... Always. It has to be part of how you think, not a step in a process.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is the first time I've heard of
#DarkUX as a concept, but it sure does crystallize a lot of garbage interactions and shady web interactions I've experienced.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.