Much of our digital landscape today and how we engage with technology is shaped by UX design, affording designers a great deal of responsibility to imagine what interactions with users could look and feel like.
Too often, though, design decisions are driven by a desire to maximize profits, even for short-term gains, without acknowledging the potential damage to relationships with users. This becomes more harmful when users are tricked or misled by engineered schemes designed to make them perform actions they may not fully understand, be aware of, or intend.
We understand this phenomenon as deceptive patterns that have become quite popular recently.
As a designer, it is important to actively center the ethical implications of your work throughout the creative and decision-making processes. Deceptive UX comes at the expense of eroding trust with users. It hinders the possibility of cultivating relationships built on transparency, informed consent, and empowerment.
In this article, I will unpack how deception as a tactic leads to worsening user outcomes and share ways to begin to reimagine ethical engagement with users.
Deceptive patterns show up throughout the user experience in myriad ways, some more overt than subtle, and contribute to a culture where manipulation and exploitation are normalized. Advocacy efforts focus on increasing awareness of deceptive patterns among users and calling for greater regulatory compliance and control.
However, there is also a need to address the widespread use of these patterns by transforming how organizations approach UX design. This requires evaluating intent and taking responsibility for how design decisions affect user outcomes.
Deceptive patterns, in my view, are only the tip of the iceberg. Though often framed as “harmless” or operating in the background, they undermine users’ sense of agency, control, and privacy. To address deceptive patterns effectively, we must tackle the root causes of how deceptive tactics become embedded in the design process.
Let’s reflect on how we engage with digital platforms and applications, particularly when we encounter deceptive patterns. I’ll share a few prompts and scenarios to help guide your exploration:
Deceptive patterns are an extension of discriminatory design practices, which seek to exploit and manipulate users.
Deceptive patterns often work by weaponizing users’ cognitive tendencies and behavioral patterns. This is done to lead users into perform actions that do not necessarily align with their best interests.
When engaging with a digital product or service, users want to feel empowered and have control over their engagement. However, user agency is frequently undermined when presented with the illusion of choice, only to be funneled into a predetermined outcome.
An example is how signing up for a Times+ subscription requires users to opt out of receiving communications. Rather than having the choice to opt in, the user is already forced to receive these updates. The two options presented are also contradictory — users must check one box to opt out of updates from The Times while checking another box to opt in for updates from selected partners. This inconsistency is intentionally designed to create ambiguity and confusion, tricking users into making unintended choices.
Another common type of deceptive pattern is obscured pricing where the lack of transparency hinders the user’s ability to make well-informed financial decisions. An example of this is how UserTesting does not have its pricing readily available upfront. Plus, interacting with their chatbot to request more information requires you to share your personal details.
Evidently, bad UX design practices compromise the user experience and leave users feeling frustrated and betrayed. Such practices also put marginalized users at greater risk as they are more likely to experience harm. This not only has a lasting impact on brand loyalty and reputation but undermines the possibility of cultivating meaningful relationships with users.
We must collectively confront how deception and manipulation creep into our design practices and intentionally invest in building relational trust and practicing accountability.
Building relational trust is an ongoing, evolving practice that requires embracing change and creating space for genuine community engagement.
We must shift toward relational approaches that meaningfully involve people through the design process. Only then will we be able to foster a sense of well-being and sustained engagement.
LogRocket lets you replay users' product experiences to visualize struggle, see issues affecting adoption, and combine qualitative and quantitative data so you can create amazing digital experiences.
See how design choices, interactions, and issues affect your users — get a demo of LogRocket today.
Radio buttons for single choice. And checkboxes for multiple choices. Seems simple? There’s a lot more to it. I talk about the differences, use cases, and the best UX practices for using them.
Creating intuitive interfaces starts with the HIG. In this blog, I’ll summarize all of the HIG principles, why they matter, and how you can apply them to build better UX.
Cart abandonment is a major hurdle. But with these 10 UX tweaks, you can create a more convincing path to purchase, drive conversions, and minimize dropoffs.
Design engineering is becoming integral to UX roles. But how is this shift impacting job descriptions for UX designers, and what can you do about it?
Learn more →
