Web Design Company | Ethics In User Experience Design – Usability Geek
Professional ethics exists in various fields, but how does it manifest itself in user experience design? What can be done to provide users with products that put their interests up front, and how do brands do it?
User experience design is a term that has many different layers. Those who practice it are paving the way for users to interact with a product. Decisions are based on this fact. Some decisions may result in a limitation of the users’ actions or doing things that the user would not necessarily choose.
The area of ethics in user experience design lies on a scale that ranges from providing complete freedom for users, up to making all the decisions for them.
As a part of our daily routine, user experience designers “hack” into the thought patterns of their users. When they succeed, it very likely results in the success of the product itself. The process starts by choosing which options are available, while limiting personalization capabilities. It continues through stages where the flow dictates the user’s actions using learning steps, reaching the point where the system benefits from predicting behavioural patterns.
I would define an ethical challenge as the moment when the line of making seemingly-motiveless decisions that serve the interests of the system over those of the user, is crossed.
Why should we care at all? Well, if we are the ones who plan the processes and make the decisions, these are topics that ought to be addressed from a professional standpoint. No one would like to be labelled as the creator of an app that makes its users feel uncomfortable to interact with. For company owners, it is even more significant. Users today have a developed sense of critique. They voluntarily leave reviews in app stores, use stars to rate, invest time in conversations about the product/service, etc. You would probably like to avoid a PR crisis or a product failure which originated from poor planning, especially when it is relatively easy to prevent by putting your mind to it and gaining trust.
What Do Ethics Have to do with User Experience Design?
Every project requires planning from scratch, and no axiomatic assumptions should be made. Even if something proved effective for one target audience, it does not mean that the same process would work again for a different set of users.
Depending on the project, you are at liberty of taking a number of decisions. For example, you can decide how limiting the onboarding process would be or whether or not you should gamify the process that is leading to a review prompt. You can choose what data to display and what to hide (ideally, basing this on research results). You can decide what should be animated so as to create an emotion before making a decision. These are just some of the various decisions you can take for the benefit of the product. Such decisions have crucial importance for a product since manipulation attempts will very likely irritate users and cause them to leave, or close their account and delete the app. In three words: “that escalated quickly”, and in four: “influencing the user’s opinion”. Users usually make up their minds and accumulate a sense of comfort towards your product faster than you might think.
Ethics in user experience design is not a binding rule, but rather a collection of professional tips that would help you improve your product for your target users. The goal of this article is to create understanding and familiarity with this concept in various applications, so you could group these hunches with your common sense, beginning with your current projects.
Occasionally, while working, I find myself asking ethical questions regarding micro-actions and processes regarding registration, requests for permissions, monetizations and more. For each project, I consider what is the best solution. After collecting several solid ideas, I am sharing with you some of the dilemmas and the solutions I have found. I hope that you would benefit from that, regardless if you are the UX researcher, the product manager or even the CEO.
Recently, for example, I have noticed that Waze’s “Go Invisible” option was bumped up the menu. Waze stresses the social aspect of their app (traffic reports, chatter, seeing friends on the move, even carpool), and yet, they chose to put this option up front. This seemingly opposes their general philosophy. I assume they faced a choice between wanting to showcase active audience in a social network of drivers, and the freedom the drivers have to become invisible, and the latter won.
True, the notion is anything but new in social media apps, from Skype to the happy days of ICQ, we could do the ingenious action of being connected without being seen. Since then, in my opinion, values that deal with the users’ benefits (such as the need for privacy) have triumphed over the social/commercial need.
See the wisdom behind this. In such cases, potential users who would otherwise hesitate about trying the product, feel less threatened and more inclined to try it out. I assume that if Waze were not offering the option to disappear, the abandonment rate would go up or at least several users would consider the app nosey. So, flexibility towards the user’s needs can prove beneficial. Also, allowing users to choose the level of data access permissions, or not requiring many from the start, would allow more untrusting users on the bandwagon – people who are not feeling forced. In other words, users who object sharing personal data would try your product too. Therefore, a system that allows new and curious users to operate in an “unregistered” mode wins.
Every Product and its Ethical Questions
It is not always obvious, so, if you have any suspicion or ethical challenge during the creation of a flow for example, just put the question through the following filter: in a conflict of interests, do the user’s interests win? Meaning, no wasting time, no invasion of personal privacy, no unnecessary limitations and so on.
Can you answer that? Great! You are halfway there.
On one hand, multiple options = freedom to act
In the blue corner of the ring, we are placing the liberal principles of providing maximum personalization options and complete freedom. We expect the user to adjust the parameters however he/she sees fit. Here, all the questions are asked, all the possibilities are presented, and users are free to do as they please. Thus, they claim responsibility for their actions, whereas we, the designers of the system, are presenting the full scale of the system in the easiest and clearest way we can arrange the interface. In such cases, the user is expected to waste much time, as at any moment it is possible to backtrack and change parameters, settings and whatnot. Tinkering with the system itself can be never-ending.
Freedom is the main benefit, and the stage is set for the user, with maximum assistance for every action they might want to perform.
On the other hand, limiting the user = preventing errors
On the opposing red corner, find principles of conservatism and wrapping up the user. Here, we will not assume the user comprehends the entire gravity of their choices. We will ask as few questions as we can, with most choices being pre-made. In such cases, it is common to see a closed circuit of onboarding/tutorial that showcases the options, allowing the user to confirm only the most crucial choices (while being asked just once). Here, we strive to get the system as foolproof as we can. Consecutively, the interface would be linear, reduced and efficient, while guiding the user into performing specific actions without having to mess around with the system. Some might say that this is the optimal experience and the manifestation of respect to the user’s time.
This scenario is very much similar to how in the iOS interface, the “closeness” of elements allows the planning of streamlined processes, thus making the experience more consistent.
How much emphasis to bestow unto each approach
In reality, things are not black and white (…but rather, red and blue). Let me explain.
Let us take a banking app. Depositing a cheque would require the app to walk the user hand in hand, confirm multiple times while checking the balance and should not require any specific assistance. Meaning: when facing an action with significant consequences, where no mistakes are allowed, we need to lead our users, while confirming the understanding of each step and pacing by them.
Alternatively, think of states in which you have no direct control over, let us say, Gmail’s or Google Docs autosave features at intervals. Changes are saved automatically, sometimes allowing you to view the drafts or change history. As opposed to the banking app, there is no escorting. The decision has been made for you. Even if you are an above-average user, you cannot choose when to auto-save. Any negative implications for auto-saving? Virtually none.
Have you ever thought about the question “should your credit card details be saved for future purchases?” and whether it is toggled by default? (Hint: if it is on, someone has been relying on the statistic that a user would refrain from doing any additional action he/she is not sure about). Even though it might be easier not to retype the details, the system designer, in this case, is willing to compromise the data and to a certain degree, this decision is being taken in the light that it is in the system’s interests). The default might tell you, as users, a great deal about the intentions of the system’s planners.
Things To Do In Riverside County California
Riverside County California News