Want to reduce harmful design? Make good design easy.
People are rightfully concerned about being manipulated online. One of the causes is deceptive, or harmful, design practices. Two of the UK’s regulators have published a report on harmful design practices. This makes it even more important for organisations to act, but it is not enough. Regulators and service providers need to make it easier to do good design. Here’s where to get started.
People are concerned about being manipulated online
People are concerned about being manipulated online — whether it be to unnecessarily share personal data, to sign up for a so-called ‘deal’ that comes with hidden catches, or to trust something that is fake. If you’ve ever felt this way, you’re not alone.
40% of shopping websites rely on manipulative practices
We regularly hear these concerns in IF’s research, and they are backed up by large-scale surveys.
78% of UK adults are concerned about personal information being used to influence their behaviour. Only 43% of European consumers feel in control of the content they are shown and the decisions they take. European regulators found that 40% of shopping websites rely on manipulative practices.
Governments are taking action
Societies and regulators are now taking action on one of the factors causing these concerns — deceptive design.
The European Union’s new Digital Services Act prohibits certain design practices, the EU is updating consumer protection legislation, and the US Federal Trade Commission has proposed new rules that certain things — like cancelling a subscription — must be easy for consumers to do.
Two UK regulators have published a paper on harmful design
Two of the UK’s regulators — the ICO, who are responsible for data protection, and the CMA, who are responsible for consumer protection and competition — have combined to publish a paper on harmful design in digital markets.
It describes five harmful practices — “harmful nudges and sludge”, “confirm shaming”, “biased framing”, “bundled consent” and “default settings” that regulators will take action on if organisations don’t stop.
Regulators combining forces is an encouraging step
A joint report from two regulators is particularly encouraging because issues in digital are cross-cutting.
To give just two examples
- A team working on the UK’s Universal Credit benefits service needs to consider the Public Sector Equality Duty, data protection legislation, and the various bits of legislation that are part of the needs for their service.
- A team working on a financial service needs to consider data protection, competition regulation, consumer protection and the new Finance Consumer Duty.
But regulatory threats are not enough
From IF’s experience of working with product teams in the public, private and third sectors we know that more is needed to make it easier for teams to do good design.
Design is difficult. It needs R&D investment. Less harmful design needs the alignment of multiple internal stakeholders and can be at odds with the first-order business impacts that a team is tasked to measure and improve. It can be seen as an afterthought, rather than a strategic consideration with a significant impact on the organisation, people and society.
To make good design easier, these are the kind of things that are needed:
- Examples of what good looks like
- Guidance to help teams make decisions
- Ways to measure, collect and store evidence
Examples of what good looks like
The ICO and CMA report describes what harmful practices look like, but it does not show what good practices look like. This is where most investment is required.
Some large firms and organisations — like the UK government’s Government Digital Service, Google, and Wise — invest in R&D to develop and maintain design systems. These systems are full of good practices with tips to help teams decide which ones to use for their product. We’ve helped teams design responsible ones.
Design systems can cost a lot of money to develop and maintain. Smaller organisations can struggle to build and maintain these systems.
Sharing good patterns in an openly available design system will help more teams in more organisations build trustworthy products and services.
Guidance to help teams make decisions
Product teams can struggle to navigate legislation, particularly when multiple regulators are involved as different pieces of regulation can be in tension with each other and involve a number of different internal teams.
For example, competition regulation can require increased access to data and affect business models, while data protection and cybersecurity requires data and features to be extremely securely controlled.
There’s a myth that raising awareness will result in the right behaviour. We need to create a choice architecture that makes preferred futures easier to pursue.
Providing practical guidance on how to bring together stakeholders and align decisions with the intent of legislation will help more teams make better decisions for their organisations, for people, and for broader society.
Ways to measure, collect and store evidence
The ICO and CMA paper says that organisations are expected to test and trial design choices to ensure that they are evidence-based. But it does not provide guidance for how to do this.
This guidance should describe how to responsibly test and trial new designs in ways that are legal and ethical, what should be measured and improved, and how evidence should be stored and shared.
Making it easier to do good design
Because people are fearful of being manipulated online, regulators around the world are clamping down on harmful design practices. The ‘stick’ of regulatory fines is necessary, but it will not be enough.
Regulators and service providers need to make it easier for product teams to make good design decisions.
If you want to discuss this blogpost then contact the Projects by IF team on hello@projectsbyif.com.
