Dark Patterns, Reframed
How High-Level Terms Are Holding Back UX Progress
Summary:
The commonly cited dark patterns, like Roach Motel and Privacy Zuckering, are too abstract to guide actionable change in UX design, leading to their continued rise in real-world applications. This article proposes a new, UI-specific approach to identifying and addressing dark patterns, focusing on tangible design elements that prioritize user control and inclusivity.
Dark patterns are some of the most discussed topics in UX design—and for good reason. These deceptive design choices prioritize business goals over user needs, often manipulating users into actions they wouldn’t otherwise take. Here’s a list of the terms I see written about most often:
Roach Motel - Easy to get into (like signing up for a subscription) but difficult to exit.
Forced Continuity - Automatically charging users after a free trial without clear reminders.
Privacy Zuckering - Tricking users into sharing more personal information than they intended, eroding trust in the platform.
Bait and Switch - A user takes an action expecting one result but experiences another.
Confirmshaming - Guilt-tripping users into opting in, such as through manipulative language like "Don't you care about saving money?"
Hidden Costs - Revealing additional charges only at the final step of a transaction, frustrating users who feel deceived.
Disguised Ads -Ads designed to look like core content or interface elements, tricking users into interacting with them.
Trick Questions - Forms or options worded to confuse users, causing unintended actions like subscribing to services.
Sneak Into Basket - Automatically adding items to a shopping cart without user consent, making checkout deceptive.
Misdirection - Deliberately focusing users' attention on one element to hide another, such as highlighting a purchase option while burying the free version.
While these are valid critiques, they're often too high-level. Saying something is a "Roach Motel" doesn't identify the specific design patterns causing the problem. These terms help frame discussions around ethical design practices, but if you're evaluating the usability of a specific website or product, you need more concrete guidance. Saying something is a "Roach Motel" doesn't pinpoint which UI elements are problematic or how to improve them. These terms are also too subjective to inspire real-world change.
Imagine a world where you no longer have to endlessly debate with coworkers whether a design qualifies as "Privacy Zuckering" by definition. Instead, picture a more objective, bottoms-up approach driven by a commonly agreed-upon norm. We should evaluate individual UI patterns with a clear guiding principle. My proposal: any design choice that removes user control or freedom should be considered a dark pattern.
So, how can reframing help us understand dark patterns in a more practical, real-world sense? I turn to one of Jakob Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics: User Control and Freedom. Using this heuristic as a guiding principle for identifying UI-level dark patterns ensures you don't overlook real-world examples on your website or app due to the overly vague framing of traditional dark patterns.
🚨 Disclaimer: Using User Control and Freedom doesn't map directly onto the common terms above, but it almost does. It's a helpful reframing that I've seen drive real change in the real world, rather than leading to endless debates in meetings about whether a design fits a specific definition.
Here's a reframed list of patterns we should consider classifying as dark patterns:
Specific UI-Level Dark Patterns
Pre-filled UI Elements
What It Is: Automatically filled checkboxes, form fields, or options.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: These make assumptions about user consent, removing their choice and often tricking them into agreeing to something they didn’t intend.
Auto-Playing Content
What It Is: Videos, music, sound effects, or animations that play without user interaction.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: It disrupts user environments, wastes bandwidth, and disrespects personal settings like sound preferences.
Auto-Advancing Carousels and Moving Content
What It Is: Sliders or elements that move on their own, often cycling through content too quickly for users to process.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: It removes user control over pacing and can cause frustration, leaving users struggling to engage with the content.
Scroll-Jacking
What It Is: Hijacking a user’s scrolling behavior to dictate navigation, often skipping sections or locking users into specific views.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: It breaks user expectations and makes interfaces feel unpredictable and disorienting.
Non-Standard UI Components
What It Is: Custom cursors, scrollbars, or other non-standard elements that don’t follow platform conventions.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: These break consistency, confuse users, and introduce unnecessary cognitive load.
Button Text That Doesn’t Match the Action
What It Is: Misleading buttons like “BUY NOW” that redirect to an email sign-up or secondary action instead of completing the purchase.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: It erodes trust by failing to meet user expectations and creates unnecessary friction in the journey.
Forms and Error Prevention Issues
What It Is: Forms that block actions like copy-pasting or lack clear options for undoing mistakes, such as irreversible deletions.
Why It’s a Dark Pattern: These restrict user actions and fail to prevent errors, leaving users trapped or frustrated when they make mistakes.
Accessibility
Okay, so this is about the point in the conversation where UX folks, especially aesthetically focused UX designers, tend to push back. Before you do, please consider that each of these UI-level dark patterns doesn’t just undermine usability—they also actively discriminate against users with disabilities. By breaching core accessibility standards, these patterns make interfaces unusable or even hostile to individuals who rely on assistive technologies or adaptive devices.
Pre-filled UI Elements: These patterns assume a universal user experience without considering individuals who rely on screen readers or keyboard navigation. Automatically selected options can be confusing or misleading for users who can’t visually confirm the choices made on their behalf.
Auto-Playing Content: Auto-playing videos or sound create chaos for users with auditory or cognitive sensitivities. For individuals using screen readers, this can interfere with their ability to navigate or process information effectively.
Auto-Advancing Carousels and Moving Content: Automatically changing content removes the ability for users to interact at their own pace. This disproportionately affects users with motor impairments, visual impairments, or cognitive disabilities who may need more time to process and act.
Scroll-Jacking: Hijacking scroll behavior traps users in an unfamiliar, uncontrollable interaction model. This is especially problematic for users relying on alternative navigation methods, such as keyboard shortcuts or adaptive hardware.
Non-Standard UI Components: Custom components often ignore standard accessibility protocols, rendering interfaces incompatible with assistive technologies like screen readers or braille displays. Non-standard cursors or scrollbars can alienate users who depend on familiar interaction models.
Button Text That Doesn’t Match the Action: Misleading buttons can confuse any user, but they are particularly harmful for individuals with cognitive disabilities or those relying on text-to-speech tools. Clear and accurate labels are essential for these users to understand and trust the interface.
Forms and Error Prevention Issues: Restrictive forms that block actions like copy-pasting or fail to provide error prevention mechanisms are exclusionary. Users with motor impairments or limited dexterity may struggle to re-enter information manually, and irreversible mistakes create unnecessary barriers.
💡 Note: See how all of these are easily avoided upfront if you reframe your thinking to focus on maintaining user control and freedom? It’s a simple hack to prevent these terrible outcomes.
These dark patterns are not just poor design choices; they are a direct violation of principles like inclusivity and equal access. By ignoring accessibility needs, they exclude a significant portion of users, often creating experiences that are actively discriminatory. Recognizing the intersection of dark patterns and accessibility issues is crucial for creating ethical, user-centered designs that truly serve everyone.
Conclusion
The commonly cited dark patterns—Roach Motel, Privacy Zuckering, Forced Continuity, and others—have undoubtedly shaped how we think about unethical design. But their high-level framing is failing us in the real world. Despite the countless articles, conference talks, and blog posts that repeat this list of terms, dark patterns continue to increase. In fact, I’ve seen their usage increase in the real world, not decrease.
Why? Because these terms, while thought-provoking, are too abstract to guide actionable change. They spark endless debates about whether a design "technically" qualifies as one of these patterns, but they rarely lead to improvements in usability. Worse yet, they overlook the real-world impact on accessibility, which is where these patterns cause the most harm.
This new, UI-specific list shifts the focus to tangible elements of design and ties them directly to measurable harm. It avoids abstract debates and provides clear, actionable guidance that can help designers and researchers address these issues head-on. If adopted, it could do far more good for the UX profession—helping us build interfaces that are not just functional but ethical and inclusive.
It’s time to move beyond well-worn terms that no longer serve us and embrace a more practical, actionable approach to eliminating dark patterns in the real world.
Feedback
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Have you seen an increase or decrease in dark patterns in your work? Do the common terms fall short for you as well, or is it just me? Feel free to comment here or DM me with your comments, questions, or just to chat. Thanks, everyone!