Dark Patterns¶
Brignull, H. (2010). Dark Patterns. deceptive.design.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Progressive Disclosure
- Mapped back: The express-install screen is the surface layer sufficient to act on, "Advanced" is the honest affordance down, the recommended settings are the well-chosen defaults, and a consequential charge buried behind an innocuous toggle is the dark-pattern failure the availability/presentation distinction exposes.
This sourceCatalogs interface dark patterns, including consequential defaults and charges concealed behind unobtrusive disclosure affordances.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The deceptive.design catalog names hidden costs, sneaking and preselected defaults as dark patterns, but says nothing about express-install screens or Advanced toggles.
“The user is drawn into a transaction on false pretences, because pertinent information is hidden or delayed from being presented to them.”
- Mapped back: The express-install screen is the surface layer sufficient to act on, "Advanced" is the honest affordance down, the recommended settings are the well-chosen defaults, and a consequential charge buried behind an innocuous toggle is the dark-pattern failure the availability/presentation distinction exposes.
Mechanisms¶
- Opt-Out Architecture
- It is the direct antidote to dark patterns: interface choices engineered to steer users away from decisions in their own interest, of which the buried-cancellation "roach motel" is the archetype.
This sourceDefines dark patterns as interfaces designed against users’ interests and identifies the “roach motel” pattern as easy entry followed by difficult exit or cancellation.
- It is the direct antidote to dark patterns: interface choices engineered to steer users away from decisions in their own interest, of which the buried-cancellation "roach motel" is the archetype.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:5b86477db666 · see in the full table