Ethical Re-design Workbook
User Experience Design Ethics
—Pavan Suresh
Master of Science in Human-Computer Interaction
Department of Human-Centered Computing, Indiana University
Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering - Indianapolis - Spring 2024
Overview
This document delves into the ethical challenges of UX design, highlighting four primary pitfalls: Confirm Shaming (Guilt-inducing language), Forced Continuity Trap, Deceptive UI Tricks, and Biased AI algorithms.
For manipulative advertising that uses guilt trips to pressure purchases, the document suggests rephrasing options with a positive spin or providing educational content to empower users. When unsubscribing becomes a hurdle race of forced actions like watching videos, the document recommends offering clear and direct unsubscribe options that do not lock users in. Deceptive UI elements that hide refund options or make them seem less desirable are countered with a call for transparent interfaces where all choices are presented fairly with clear descriptions. Finally, the document addresses the challenge of biased AI algorithms that can perpetuate discrimination. To mitigate this, it proposes using diverse data sets to train AI systems, implementing algorithms that detect and reduce bias, and even establishing ethical review boards to ensure fairness.
Beyond specific solutions, the document emphasizes a core principle: UX design should prioritize the user. Let’s explore the why below.
Identifying Ethical Issues
Ethical Issue 1: Confirm Shaming (Guilt-inducing language)
(Fig1)The image is an advertisement for travel insurance with ICICI Lombard General Insurance. Travel insurance is a financial product that protects travelers from financial losses due to unforeseen events such as trip cancellation, medical emergencies, or lost luggage.
Ethical Challenge: Deceptive design
The advertisement uses a design pattern known as a "confirm-shaming" tactic. This tactic uses negative language to pressure users into making a decision. The ad gives the user two options: "Yes, secure my trip" or "No, I will take the risk." Choosing "No" is framed in a way that suggests the user is irresponsible and is taking a chance by not purchasing travel insurance.
This tactic is ethically concerning because it manipulates people's fears and insecurities into making a purchase they may not need or want. It also creates a false dichotomy by suggesting that the only two choices are to buy insurance or take a significant risk. This directly undermines user autonomy and their right to make informed choices based on a balanced presentation of options. (Weston, The Ethics of Person)
Key Values at Stake
Autonomy: People should be free to choose travel insurance and other benefits without being pressured or coerced.
Fairness: People should be given all the necessary information about the benefits to makan informed decision.
C. Redesign
1. Positive Framing:
Instead of using guilt-inducing language like "No, I will take the risk," the advertisement could present the alternative option in a more neutral or positive light. For example, it could say, "I will explore my options." This reframes the decision as an opportunity for the user to consider different choices rather than implying irresponsibility.
Educational Approach:
Instead of immediately presenting the options to buy or not buy insurance, the advertisement could provide educational content about the importance of travel insurance and its benefits. This approach empowers users to make informed decisions based on their understanding of the product rather than relying on emotional manipulation.
Customized Recommendations:
The advertisement could incorporate a brief questionnaire or interactive feature to assess the user's travel needs and risk factors. Based on the users' responses, personalized recommendations for travel insurance coverage could be provided, avoiding the need for guilt-inducing language and ensuring that the users feel their circumstances are being considered.
Transparent Comparison:
Presenting a side-by-side comparison of the benefits and limitations of purchasing travel insurance versus not purchasing it can help users understand the implications of their decision more clearly. This approach promotes fairness by ensuring users can access all relevant information and decide based on their preferences and priorities.
Ethical Issue 2: Forced continuity trap
(Fig 2)The image is a video advertisement shown in the Samcart application when trying to unsubscribe and deactivate.
Ethical Challenge: Dark pattern
The application uses a design pattern called a "Forced continuity trap" tactic. This tactic forces users to watch a video to continue the desired action. Here, the app presents the users with inactive buttons to "Deactivate account" and "Upgrade" until they watch the video entirely createing an unjust situation for users who are trying to unsubscribe. Ideally, technology should help people, not create negative experiences (Mariam Asad. 2019)
This tactic is ethically concerning because it plays on people's free will and Leaves the user with no option to skip, forcing them to watch the entire video they may not need or want. This can lead to a negative user experience, as it creates a notion that the only choice is to watch the video or continue being a member of Samcart and doesn't allow for a calm and rational evaluation to deactivate the account hindering a user's ability to make a choice that promotes their happiness. (Distributional Ethics: Weston’s The Ethics of Happiness)
The forced video can be frustrating (the opposite of healing) and damage the user's perception of the app. Mariam Asad. 2019
Key Values at Stake
Autonomy: The app requires users to take an unnecessary action, such as watching an ad, to complete the desired task of unsubscribing. This extra step can be frustrating and time-consuming for users. It also limits their autonomy, imposing an unnecessary condition on their decision-making process. Users should be able to unsubscribe directly and quickly without being forced to engage in additional, unrelated activities.
Fairness: The ad video Hinders Completion and creates an obstacle that makes it more difficult for users to unsubscribe. This can be seen as a way to discourage users from canceling their subscriptions, which is unfair. It creates an unequal playing field where users are disadvantaged, and their ability to make informed decisions is compromised.
Respect: Users can manage their subscriptions and control their interaction with a service. Presenting users with false choices—either watching the ad or remaining subscribed—undermines their right to unsubscribe directly and quickly, disrespecting their rights as customers.
Integrity: Integrity involves acting according to ethical principles and values. Forcing users to watch an ad as a prerequisite for unsubscribing can be perceived as manipulative and lacking integrity. It prioritizes the service provider's interests over users' autonomy and rights.
While some might argue that the ad video offsets the cost of the service, forcing users to watch it as a prerequisite to unsubscribing is manipulative. There are fairer ways to introduce ads.
C. Redesign
1. Transparent options:
Provide users with clear and transparent options for unsubscribing or deactivating their accounts without forced actions. Design the interface to prominently display buttons for unsubscribing or deactivating without requiring users to watch a video or take additional steps.
Time-Saving Alternative & Educational information:
Offer users a time-saving alternative to watching the entire video advertisement. For example, provide a "Skip Ad" button that appears after a few seconds, allowing users to bypass the remainder of the video and proceed with their desired action.
Instead of forcing users to watch a video advertisement, consider implementing an educational brief explanation about the importance of the service's revenue model. This can inform users about the reasons behind the ad placement while still allowing them to proceed with unsubscribing or deactivating their account without any additional steps.
Ethical Issue 3: UI Trickery
(Fig 4)The image is the Amazon return page, which provides options to replace the product and refund.
Ethical Challenge: Deceptive Design
The critical ethical challenge is deceptive design. The UI makes it appear that getting a refund to the original form of payment is a less desirable or unavailable option, even though it is technically possible but presented differently. The deceptive design in the disregards user input and doesn't involve users in critical reflection about their experience. (Sengers, Phoebe, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph 'Jofish Kaye, 2005.)
Key Values at Stake
Transparency: The UI does not clearly present all available refund options with equal weight, making it difficult for users to make informed decisions about their refund. It is not open and honest with users about all aspects of a transaction.
Trust: The design could manipulate users into choosing a less favorable option (e.g., store credit) instead of the original payment method. This could benefit the company by keeping users' money within their ecosystem. Deceptive design practices erode trust between users and companies. When users feel like they are being tricked, they are less likely to do business with that company again. In this case, the design prioritizes the company's agenda over user autonomy (Questioning Dominant Values, Sengers, Phoebe, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph 'Jofish Kaye, 2005.)
Fairness: The deceptive UI design that hides or downplays specific refund options violates this principle.
Mindfulness: The design of the return page should be mindful of how users might interpret the layout and ensure all options are presented clearly. (Weston’s The Ethics of Virtue)
Empathy: The design should consider how users might feel when they're trying to return a product and want a refund. The design shouldn't make them feel pressured to choose a different option. (Weston’s The Ethics of Virtue)
By using deceptive design, companies prioritize their interests over these critical values. They may gain a short-term advantage by manipulating users, but it can damage their reputation and customer loyalty in the long run.
C. Redesign
1. Transparent options:
Equal Visibility: Ensure that all available refund options, including refunds to the original form of payment, are presented with equal visibility and prominence on the UI. This allows users to make informed decisions based on their preferences without feeling misled or manipulated. Now, despite the change, users are given the option to make decisions for themselves.
Clear Descriptions: Provide clear and concise descriptions for each option, outlining the process, benefits, and any associated terms or conditions. Transparency in the information presented helps users understand their choices and builds trust in the replacement/return process.
Opt-Out Confirmation: Implement radio buttons with equal visual weightage to avoid confusion when deciding when a refund to Amazon account balance is selected by default in the refund option other than the original payment method. This dialogue should clearly explain that a refund to the original payment form is available and allow users to confirm their choice or reconsider.
User Preference Settings: Users can customize their refund preferences within their account settings. By default, users can set their preferred refund method, empowering them to streamline the refund process and avoid potential confusion or manipulation in the future.
Ideation
Ethical Issue 1: Confirm Shaming (Guilt-inducing language)
I. Insights
Iteration: Identifying and addressing ethical concerns in design is not a one-time task but rather an ongoing, iterative process. It involves continuously revisiting and refining design solutions through testing and feedback loops. I carefully designed a few keywords to guide my design iterations during the redesign process. I made sure to incorporate and emphasize those keywords in each new iteration. Through iteration practices, designers can gather valuable insights that help refine their approaches to ensure they are clear, effective, and ethically sound.
Empathy and User-Centricity: Throughout the entire redesign process, I prioritized the needs and goals the user was trying to achieve. I ensured that the iterations addressed not only the functional requirements but also the emotional needs of the users. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the 'why' behind user behaviors and preferences, ultimately leading to more effective and impactful designs.
Communication: Clear communication of the application's intent and ethical considerations behind design decisions is essential for fostering trust and transparency with users and stakeholders. Users are more likely to trust the product or service When they understand the rationale behind particular design choices and the ethical principles guiding them. Transparent communication also allows for constant redesign feedback and encourages accountability in the design process.
Transparent UI Design: I Considered hierarchy based on the user journey and iterated on the designs to provide equal visibility and prominence to all options, ensuring users can make informed decisions. By prioritizing transparency, users can navigate through the interface with clarity and trust, enabling them to make informed decisions without being misled or manipulated.
II. Ideation Strategies
High-Level Strategies:
Here is the framework I used to redesign the identified ethical issues:
Ownership bias: We value things more when we feel we own them
Friction: We are less likely to complete a task with each step added.
Analysis Paralysis: Our capacity to process information and make decisions reduces with each made
Loss aversion: We feel more negative when losing something than positive when we gain it
Salience: Our choices are determined by the information we are shown
Autonomy bias: We have a deep-seated need to control our situations
Ideologies:
Focus on user empowerment: Designing solutions that educate users about ethical considerations and equip them to make informed choices.
Prioritize transparency: Ensure all design elements are clear and upfront about their purpose and function.
Promote user control: Give users options and control over their data and interactions with the design.
Key Design Explorations:
Nudge Theory: Utilize subtle nudges to guide users towards ethical choices without resorting to manipulation.
Progressive Disclosure: Reveal information gradually, based on user needs and actions, avoiding information overload.
Microcopy: Leverage clear and concise language within the design to communicate ethically sensitive information.
III. Intervention Moments
Possible Interventions:
Early Design Stage: Integrate ethical considerations into design thinking frameworks and brainstorming sessions.
Prototyping and Testing: Evaluate prototypes for potential ethical pitfalls and user manipulation.
Development Phase: Implement design patterns and functionalities that promote ethical interactions.
Deployment and Post-Launch: Monitor user behavior and feedback to identify unforeseen ethical concerns.
Value Tensions:
User Needs vs. Business Goals: The challenge is to strike a balance between satisfying user needs and achieving business objectives without compromising ethical principles.
Transparency vs. Persuasion: Ensuring clear communication while promoting user engagement and adoption of the design.
User Control vs. Efficiency: Providing users control over their data and choices while maintaining a streamlined and efficient user experience.
Addressing these value tensions requires careful consideration and collaboration among designers, stakeholders, and ethicists. The chosen intervention points should be tailored to the specific design project and its unique ethical challenges.
Reflection
This workbook process has been an eye-opener! As a UX designer, I always focus on creating a smooth and positive user experience. However, this time around, I delved deeper. Given that I was redesigning for issues on a smaller scale, I had the time and space to examine the design's ethics thoroughly. It has forced me to consider some critical questions:
What strategies can I use to create ethical designs?
The most potent tools are a user-first approach, clear communication, and a healthy dose of fairness. Thinking about the user's perspective from the get-go helps avoid manipulative tactics. Being transparent about information and design choices builds trust. Moreover, finally, ensuring all users have equal access and control over their experience is paramount.
What ethical values are at stake?
Every design decision involves a delicate balancing act between different ethical values. We see this tension in the choice between happiness and fairness. Fear-driven ads might boost sales initially, but they leave users feeling pressured and manipulated, ultimately harming long-term user happiness. The same goes for "sneaky" unsubscribe processes. While they might retain a few subscriptions in the short term, they erode trust and respect for the user.
As a UX designer, it is crucial to be mindful of the ethical implications of design choices. Weston's exploration of user autonomy highlights the importance of empowering users to make informed decisions, free from manipulative tactics like "confirm-shaming" in advertisements. Such tactics undermine user autonomy and compromise user well-being, going against the core principle of creating positive user experiences.
Similarly, Mariam Asad's critique of unsubscribing processes sheds light on the negative impact of design flaws on user perception and satisfaction. To create truly inclusive and empowering experiences, we must consider frameworks like Healing Justice and Afrofuturism, which prioritize user well-being and address systemic biases within design. Furthermore, incorporating values from "The Ethics of Virtue," such as mindfulness and empathy, into the design process ensures that user needs and feelings are considered respectfully.
Understanding algorithmic bias through a CRT-HCI lens reinforces the importance of diversity in design teams. Diverse teams are better equipped to identify and mitigate biases that can perpetuate systemic inequalities within the technology. By embracing these various perspectives, we can ensure that ethical values are at the forefront of the design process.
Do my solutions create new problems?
While trying to fix things, there is always the chance I might introduce new wrinkles. For instance, building safeguards against bias in AI sounds excellent, but it might require more development time and resources. Similarly, offering a bunch of options when unsubscribing could confuse some users. The key seems to be clear design choices, keeping the information concise, and testing everything thoroughly to catch any unforeseen consequences before they impact users.
How can I take this into the real world?
This process has equipped me with some essential skills for the UX battlefield:
Critical thinking with an ethical lens: My new superpower will be questioning design choices and considering potential bias and user impact.
User empathy and research: Understanding user needs and perspectives through research will be crucial for designing solutions that genuinely benefit them.
Communication and collaboration: Clearly explaining ethical concerns and designing solutions to stakeholders will be vital to promoting ethical practices within any company.
The specific design tools I learned might not be one-size-fits-all, but the core principles of ethical design are universal. I must adapt these principles to the specific context and challenges I face in each new project. Here's to creating a world of user experiences that are smooth and delightful but also ethical and respectful!
References & Resources
(Weston, The Ethics of Person)
(Distributional Ethics: Weston’s The Ethics of Happiness)
Mariam Asad. 2019. Prefigurative Design as a Method for Research Justice. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 200 (November 2019)
Alexandra To, Angela D. R. Smith, Dilruba Showkat, Adinawa Adjagbodjou, and Christina Harrington. 2023. Flourishing in the Everyday: Moving Beyond Damage-Centered Design in HCI for BIPOC Communities. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 917–933
(Weston’s The Ethics of Virtue)
Sengers, Phoebe, Kirsten Boehner, Shay David, and Joseph 'Jofish Kaye. "Reflective design." In Proceedings of the 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility, pp. 49-58. 2005. https://dl.acm.org/droi/10.1145/1094562.1094569 (Links to an external site.) [PDF (Links to an external site.)]
Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D.R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Kentaro Toyama. 2020. Critical Race Theory for HCI. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376392Links to an external site. [PDFLinks to an external site.]
https://connect.comptia.org/blog/ethical-issues-in-technology
https://algorithmwatch.org/en/google-translate-gender-bias/
https://www.anura.io/fraud-tidbits/what-are-the-most-common-types-of-ad-fraud
https://indiaai.gov.in/article/ethical-considerations-in-ai-driven-ux-design
https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/recommendation-ethics/cases
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/08/technology/ai-chatbots-disinformation.html?smid=url-share