Okay, we can start now.
So, how many of you have ever designed a user interface in this room?
I think it's a nice question, right?
And how many of you feel confident that you designed wooden hammer any user?
One, two, three, more or less?
And how many of you feel confident that you never manipulated any user?
Or complicated now, one, one-and-a-half?
Okay, so, well, I suppose this is not equally easy for everyone to, or we are not equally confident in answering this question.
Should we care about the potential harm that comes from the user interfaces?
Well, the internet, websites, and applications in general are full of something that in the studies of human computer interaction,
we have coined as manipulative design, deceptive design, or more commonly known sometimes like dark patterns.
Out of curiosity, have you ever heard about this term before in this room?
Oh, wow, didn't expect this.
Better, but I didn't expect this at all, but well, great.
It is going to be a great discussion then.
So, well, manipulative designs are everywhere.
So, these are the designs, the design features that subvert in pair or these third,
like our ability of the user to make informed decisions in relation to detail systems, and that as a consequence,
it is related to a lot of different types of harms, like privacy harms, financial harms, attention harms, like also sort of psychological harms as well.
So, well, a lot of you are already new, there are patterns, but I'm sure you're familiar that you have experience,
and possibly on cookie-consent bunners, like that they are trying to steal users to give our privacy,
or you have maybe seen different types of gamification, or gambling strategies and different apps,
that normally they shouldn't have this type of mechanisms.
So, we have these patterns, and such are media, only commerce on video games,
and I want to make them also the last quick test, like how many of you used the application of AliExpress?
All of you are very familiar with manipulative designs of our I can imagine, because that application,
let's say hotels website, that offers you different hotels, and indicates you in very bold letters,
that well, there's few rooms, there's some urgency in here, and maybe you should take into account to book this hotel as soon as possible.
All for instance, different types of services, you're going to buy something, you have selected your product service, et cetera,
and suddenly you are knacked with more different types of firsts, that already again plays with the expectations of the users,
because they are selected something, but they are receiving something, but they are given more new options,
and also with misleading information, not only about the colors that you can take other first with more paying some more,
more highlighted, but also because it is mainly when users can know that sometimes don't understand that the grey one would be the cheapest,
because the first thing they see is that it's 100 euros, and their others are 20 or 50, so they think that these are cheaper, right?
So these are some basic examples, you can put the names of the companies or not because this is everywhere in all types of services.
So although, in some cases, you might feel you are immune towards these patterns, I must tell you, you are not,
but it's true that some people suffer the consequences of manipulative designs more than others, that is deceptive practices,
is that they explore different aspects of users' vulnerability, and that's why forever this is so important.
So for instance, we have the social aspect of vulnerability when people feel lonely, when people feel they need to be known to something,
while these patterns also exploit that, right? The famous philosophy is now, well it's an expectation of the social aspect of vulnerability.
Also, some interaction drivers like they impossible trade-offs that this, this company is providers give you,
when you are asked to choose between give me your privacy or give me your money, there is a huge power of population that always is going to give the privacy,
because they are not, they cannot give that money, right? And we also have seen this in the constant or pay model that we recently had in Europe.
Or we have some agency drivers like, we feel like that people like sometimes have improvements in perceiving the time,
these designs also play with that, or with the extent to which that users feel they can do nothing about it,
as they feel that this lack of self-efficacy they cannot protect themselves, the feel they cannot, platforms use that in their benefit.
So, all of these aspects that are also related to the user's context, drives their vulnerability to this effective practices,
and therefore make users more likely to interact with these practices and be more harmed.
Let's educate users, right? We believe that if users know more about the digital environment, they will be more protected.
But for me, like both approaches, the regulatory aspect and educational one, both remain under this logic that users always have to resist something,
they always have the burden of doing something for regulators and also regulators that advocate for the idea of education, they say,
OK, as long as there's a prediction option, the user is OK, there's no problem with it, right?
And we know that's not true, right? We actually, we see that this creates a lot of power and balances,
and actually we already have a plenty of experience with an alternative to all prediction for users that is not really working very well,
which is the cookie constant banner that we have for a long time in the European Union so far, and we already have some lessons from that, right?
So, with this kind of interventions, it's like expecting like the people that, to know everything about the food composition and say, OK, now you know everything,
now you don't get toxic food, it's your problem, right? It's your choice, if you didn't make the good choice, you're going to be both on half fun.
It would be the same, but in the, um, digital landscape.
And we also have some interventions addressed for to designers and developers in different ways. For instance, we have tools that try to automatize,
they analysis of the set of designs to try to warn designers and developers not to implement certain practices.
But at the same time, we know that the set of practices are not the matter of one color, one button, one position, the right is good and the left is, but we know that's not how it works.
Therefore, this kind of automated decisions and those, while they are, they have merit, of course, and they will contribute, they are not the solution either, right?
Actually, well, emotional triggers without being aware that this can be actually more, more harmful, that being more transparent of what you want,
or they understand, um, a, like, they implement this principle, this idea of, of trust or use experience in a more instrumental way.
They don't necessarily, they, they want to generate trust, not for the sake of trust for the user, but they want to generate trust, because they want the, to engage the user into whatever part they're doing.
There's also tension between these values and documentation and the context they are working in, like, the companies they are working in, right?
So, um, in some cases, there are organizational constraints, like, they don't feel, they have the power, they don't feel, they have the, the ethical ownership within their companies, so they can do not, they cannot match, but at the same time, we also have,
that's, we don't, we shouldn't ask the signers to take this issue, so maybe they shouldn't be taking, right? They, they, we cannot ask them for, for knowledge that they are not ethical, I feel so first, so they, we shouldn't always ask for that.
So, the result of this is that the signers sometimes end up also normalizing manipulative practices, but not necessarily by choice, um, yes, by, by necessity.
So, and in here, like, uh, we know that UX has been a bit underdeveloped in the free and open software communities, but we are seeing a shift.
Like, we see like more and more projects that are prioritizing fairness, ethics, accessibility, and different types of more user experience related values.
So, to me, the open source of the sign community has the perfect opportunity to fill this gap and to actually make the change in this topic.
So, the open source community has the knowledge, the structure, the, and the dynamics to make a successful community supported projects,
then that can reach larger audiences at the maybe other kind of stakeholders don't have, like, scholars, they don't have that knowledge.
And also open source project, um, an open source project on free patterns would benefit all kinds of, of companies, but mostly those designers that do not necessarily feel confident with some ethical decision-making, or that they simply don't have such a knowledge, and they don't have to have it.
But also, um, it will support all kinds of stakeholders by demonstrated that there are other ways of doing a further harmless UX design.
To, to reach out and contact me, here's my information, and thank you so much.
Thank you.
So, you, you said that, uh, the front end of our movement, taking, uh, to the middle.
Sorry.
When, when, when, when, like, it's like communications or what, and then communicate, somebody, you all kind of money, do they?
So, when, when you grow the nine, because design is money, because you know them, to be something, I want just a,
you know, you know, you know.
Okay, so your question is if there's a way of being manipulative in a good way, and like, because,
many, uh, design is in early manipulative, I can think it's in, that they didn't initially want to, right?
And therefore, when, with, supposedly persuasive design techniques, we are actually exploiting decisions from our abilities.
It's probably a talking about manipulation, manipulative design or the set of design, right?
So, that's, that's what, how I, I said, I don't, I don't think it's an easy question, and that's why I've done this for four years,
because I, it's not easy, uh, but to me, that would be the route to take to understand this problem in order to make effective solutions,
because I think in the regulatory aspect, they have, they are having the same problem like,
where do they, they can draw the line if everything is persuasive, right?
So, so if you don't want to say that, have you really think what, um, HDI, because possibly,
about this like, feel free to join me, because I think sounds great.
Yeah, sorry.
One minute, whatever.
I think there's a kind of a question that is English, is it a great question thing?
Yes, when we are about to think that I find very manipulating, you know,
because it's all that you want to know as your opinion or not.
Yeah.
Yes, because the regulation of your opinion on the internal design,
because if there are two cases that possibly need to go and check that.
And so, the message I come to often, if you accept coupé, two cases on parameters, one.