I would still say it’s an asshole design. They are trying to copy a well established internet Design Trend where a ‘Not Now’ sort of a button is slightly greyed out near the advertisement. I would assume the next trick would be to sneakily add the prime fees in the total and some unsuspecting user would fall for it.
Not to mention, the whole fiasco of how hard Amazon made it to cancel the prime subscription. Fuck these companies.
Nah, next is, you must watch three one minute ads and answer 10 questions about the content of the ads correctly to continue without prime and there will be a captcha displayed under the questions, which will be timed out after question 10 and you will have to start over from video one to get another try. However, when the server notices your IP already got the ad once, it will throttle the bandwidth, so the video buffers every 3 seconds.
When you finally made it to the checkout, some items became unavailable or slightly more expensive and you have to go back to the basket to update it.
It’s not possible to know from this screenshot alone if “Cancel Anytime” is a clickable target or if it’s just text, but when taking a quick glance at least to my eyes the options seem pretty clearly delineated.
Amazon sucks and they are plenty predatory, I’m just saying this is a pretty mild example of hostile UI if at all.
It’s absolutely, 100% intentionally misleading. They even recognize that internally and are currently being sued for just that.
In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, the agency accused Amazon of using deceptive designs, known as “dark patterns,” to deceive consumers into enrolling in Prime, which provides subscribers with perks such as faster shipping for an fee of $139 annually, or $14.99 a month.
The FTC said Amazon made it difficult for customers to purchase an item without also subscribing to Prime. In some cases, consumers were presented with a button to complete their transactions — which didn’t clearly state it would also enroll them in Prime.
Getting out of a subscription was often too complicated, and Amazon leadership slowed or rejected changes that would have made canceling easier, the complaint said.
Internally, Amazon called the process “Iliad,” a reference to the ancient Greek poem about lengthy siege of Troy during the Trojan war.
The examples in the FTC complaint are all well and good, and as I already said, Amazon sucks and their predatory practices are well-known, but this specific example, the one we’re talking about on this post, is pretty pedestrian.
If the OP were to post the 7-step process it takes to cancel a prime membership, that would be firmly and wholly in asshole design territory, I know, I’ve had to go through it myself. But just posting a screenshot of a mild upsell that has a clear set of binary options on opposite sides of the screen and saying “Amazon bad” doesn’t really contribute much - everyone knows Amazon sucks, and there are plenty of examples of them sucking, this just really isn’t a very good one.
Don’t forget when they were automatically signing people with an Amazon Echo to Amazon Music. I had to cancel that twice and neither time was there ever a comment or email stating I was enrolled.
Common UI has “yes” and “no” (or whatever terms) next to each other, often in different colors. This is mimicing it so you think it’s two separate buttons when it’s one button for “yes”.
And has “cancel …” like you’d expect on a cancel button. If you stop reading or are skimming (we all do it) you think it’s the cancel button. This is very likely a deliberate choice.
Different color, common placement, the word “cancel …”, you go on autopilot, and now you’re subscribed! And good luck trying to cancel.
And has “cancel …” like you’d expect on a cancel button. If you stop reading or are skimming (we all do it) you think it’s the cancel button. This is very likely a deliberate choice.
But there’s nothing to cancel here, so in this context there’s no basis for assumption that there would be a cancel button - cancel what? A subscription you don’t yet have? It’s not a logical conclusion.
Sure, we all skim sometimes, but this isn’t a 40 page terms of use document. There are less than 100 words in this entire screenshot. It takes less than 30 seconds to read everything on this page and make an informed decision.
You’re being extremely pedantic. The buttons are affirmative or refusal. That’s what people associate and think. You see “cancel” which is a extremely common refusal button and think it’s a refusal button. People aren’t doing an analysis that “I technically haven’t signed up, so technically there’s nothing to cancel, in the strict definition of cancel a service, so technically cancel doesn’t fit, so the decision tree must therefore be…”. No, you go into affirm or deny.
Ever wonder why at a bank machine you get your card back first and then the cash? Because they found the other way around people take the cash (what they are focused on) and don’t wait for the card. UI design is a real thing precisely to avoid confusion. They are very much taking advantage of it.
Yes, they are: the link on the left clearly states “Continue without Amazon Prime”, the button on the right clearly states “Continue with Amazon Prime”. I don’t share your view that “Cancel anytime” underneath that button is confusing.
The user shares some responsibility in reading what they are clicking on - this is also why “I didn’t read it” isn’t a valid legal defense against a contract or terms you agreed to.
Yes, they are: the link on the left clearly states “
I said it already:
Common UI has “yes” and “no” (or whatever terms) next to each other, often in different colors. This is mimicing it so you think it’s two separate buttons when it’s one button for “yes”.
Not on opposite sides of the screen. Next to each other.
And the whole right side has a big blue box around it. As in all your attention needs to be on the right side, that’s where the decision tree is.
And then like I said, it has the affirmative, and right where you’d expect it the refusal button. But it’s not a refusal button, it’s part of the affirmative button.
I don’t share your view that “Cancel anytime” underneath that button is confusing.
Oh you just did it! “Cancel anytime” is not underneath the button, it is part of the affirmative button. Part of.
Congrats you just got confused. You went on autopilot and got it mixed up. You know, based on what you’d expect based on common UI. You just did what you are lambasting others for.
Oh you just did it! “Cancel anytime” is not underneath the button, it is part of the affirmative button. Part of.
…but it’s not part of the button. The yellow button that says “Continue with Amazon Prime” is fully contained within the yellow button that one would click to proceed.
I’m not sure how much clearer the decline option being on the left, and the proceed option on the right, highlighted in yellow, could be.
And again, the “Cancel anytime” subtext isn’t even clickable, so what deceptive action has Amazon engineered here? For someone to click on a non-clickable target?
There’s no arguing that this is stupid design, but that doesn’t make it asshole design. Hanlon’s razor and all that.
Take another look! Both the yellow button and “cancel …” are part of the same bigger grey box.
This is OP’s complaint. It looks like two boxes/buttons, but it’s one bigger button containing both. You click “cancel…”, and you’ve really just clicked the bigger box that subscribes.
…being within the same container does not make them both the same clickable target. Do you know from personal experience that clicking “Cancel anytime” is clickable? Because as I said, over two hours ago,
It’s not possible to know from this screenshot alone if “Cancel Anytime” is a clickable target or if it’s just text, but when taking a quick glance at least to my eyes the options seem pretty clearly delineated. Amazon sucks and they are plenty predatory, I’m just saying this is a pretty mild example of hostile UI if at all.
I’ve personally fallen for this, it works and it’s intentional. Anything that tricks a user into clicking on something they didn’t mean to is a dark pattern and asshole design.
I’ve been pretty clear that Amazon is predatory and well-known to be shitty. I’ve been clear using my own example of how difficult it is to cancel Amazon Prime as a great example of hostile UI design.
It’s possible to have an intelligent conversation about how the specific example used in this post isn’t a very good representation of hostile design, especially compared to the other egregious things Amazon has done and continues to do.
You don’t need to resort to being rude, it’s okay to say you don’t agree.
On a quick inspection the left barely looks like it’s worth reading and it’s easy to miss the link, so you’re led to thinking there’s a yes and a no button on the right. Click the no button and you’ve subscribed to Prime.
Obviously if you stop and actually look at everything you’ll realise what’s up. But this relies on you rushing and being misled in to signing up, which clearly works for them.
I see your point, and of course each user’s interpretation is going to be different.
But I think you made another good point in your second paragraph - the effectiveness of these is dependent on user ignorance.
I’m not saying by any means that it’s the user’s fault if they fall prey to hostile UI, but there is some responsibility on the user to actually read what they’re clicking before they click, in the sense that you can protect yourself from a lot of scenarios like this just by taking a moment and reading.
I understand that’s easier said than done, trying to help my parents with technical support items is infuriating to watch them click “ok” on a dialog box and then ask you afterwards what it said - like, there’s an easy solution: read, then click. Not the other way around.
Why would it be two buttons on the right, and what behavior would you expect if “Cancel Anytime” was a button?
The goal of this is to get you to sign up for Prime, so there’s nothing yet to cancel.
This is “annoying” design in the sense that getting an upsell is annoying, but I don’t really see it as malicious/asshole.
I would still say it’s an asshole design. They are trying to copy a well established internet Design Trend where a ‘Not Now’ sort of a button is slightly greyed out near the advertisement. I would assume the next trick would be to sneakily add the prime fees in the total and some unsuspecting user would fall for it. Not to mention, the whole fiasco of how hard Amazon made it to cancel the prime subscription. Fuck these companies.
Nah, next is, you must watch three one minute ads and answer 10 questions about the content of the ads correctly to continue without prime and there will be a captcha displayed under the questions, which will be timed out after question 10 and you will have to start over from video one to get another try. However, when the server notices your IP already got the ad once, it will throttle the bandwidth, so the video buffers every 3 seconds. When you finally made it to the checkout, some items became unavailable or slightly more expensive and you have to go back to the basket to update it.
You need to be banned from working in web design lol
It’s not possible to know from this screenshot alone if “Cancel Anytime” is a clickable target or if it’s just text, but when taking a quick glance at least to my eyes the options seem pretty clearly delineated.
Amazon sucks and they are plenty predatory, I’m just saying this is a pretty mild example of hostile UI if at all.
It’s absolutely, 100% intentionally misleading. They even recognize that internally and are currently being sued for just that.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/06/21/amazon-prime-without-consent/
The examples in the FTC complaint are all well and good, and as I already said, Amazon sucks and their predatory practices are well-known, but this specific example, the one we’re talking about on this post, is pretty pedestrian.
If the OP were to post the 7-step process it takes to cancel a prime membership, that would be firmly and wholly in asshole design territory, I know, I’ve had to go through it myself. But just posting a screenshot of a mild upsell that has a clear set of binary options on opposite sides of the screen and saying “Amazon bad” doesn’t really contribute much - everyone knows Amazon sucks, and there are plenty of examples of them sucking, this just really isn’t a very good one.
Don’t forget when they were automatically signing people with an Amazon Echo to Amazon Music. I had to cancel that twice and neither time was there ever a comment or email stating I was enrolled.
Common UI has “yes” and “no” (or whatever terms) next to each other, often in different colors. This is mimicing it so you think it’s two separate buttons when it’s one button for “yes”.
And has “cancel …” like you’d expect on a cancel button. If you stop reading or are skimming (we all do it) you think it’s the cancel button. This is very likely a deliberate choice.
Different color, common placement, the word “cancel …”, you go on autopilot, and now you’re subscribed! And good luck trying to cancel.
But there’s nothing to cancel here, so in this context there’s no basis for assumption that there would be a cancel button - cancel what? A subscription you don’t yet have? It’s not a logical conclusion.
Sure, we all skim sometimes, but this isn’t a 40 page terms of use document. There are less than 100 words in this entire screenshot. It takes less than 30 seconds to read everything on this page and make an informed decision.
You’re being extremely pedantic. The buttons are affirmative or refusal. That’s what people associate and think. You see “cancel” which is a extremely common refusal button and think it’s a refusal button. People aren’t doing an analysis that “I technically haven’t signed up, so technically there’s nothing to cancel, in the strict definition of cancel a service, so technically cancel doesn’t fit, so the decision tree must therefore be…”. No, you go into affirm or deny.
Ever wonder why at a bank machine you get your card back first and then the cash? Because they found the other way around people take the cash (what they are focused on) and don’t wait for the card. UI design is a real thing precisely to avoid confusion. They are very much taking advantage of it.
Yes, they are: the link on the left clearly states “Continue without Amazon Prime”, the button on the right clearly states “Continue with Amazon Prime”. I don’t share your view that “Cancel anytime” underneath that button is confusing.
The user shares some responsibility in reading what they are clicking on - this is also why “I didn’t read it” isn’t a valid legal defense against a contract or terms you agreed to.
I said it already:
Common UI has “yes” and “no” (or whatever terms) next to each other, often in different colors. This is mimicing it so you think it’s two separate buttons when it’s one button for “yes”.
Not on opposite sides of the screen. Next to each other.
And the whole right side has a big blue box around it. As in all your attention needs to be on the right side, that’s where the decision tree is.
And then like I said, it has the affirmative, and right where you’d expect it the refusal button. But it’s not a refusal button, it’s part of the affirmative button.
Oh you just did it! “Cancel anytime” is not underneath the button, it is part of the affirmative button. Part of.
Congrats you just got confused. You went on autopilot and got it mixed up. You know, based on what you’d expect based on common UI. You just did what you are lambasting others for.
…but it’s not part of the button. The yellow button that says “Continue with Amazon Prime” is fully contained within the yellow button that one would click to proceed.
I’m not sure how much clearer the decline option being on the left, and the proceed option on the right, highlighted in yellow, could be.
And again, the “Cancel anytime” subtext isn’t even clickable, so what deceptive action has Amazon engineered here? For someone to click on a non-clickable target?
There’s no arguing that this is stupid design, but that doesn’t make it asshole design. Hanlon’s razor and all that.
Take another look! Both the yellow button and “cancel …” are part of the same bigger grey box.
This is OP’s complaint. It looks like two boxes/buttons, but it’s one bigger button containing both. You click “cancel…”, and you’ve really just clicked the bigger box that subscribes.
Congrats, you did exactly, exactly, what OP did.
…being within the same container does not make them both the same clickable target. Do you know from personal experience that clicking “Cancel anytime” is clickable? Because as I said, over two hours ago,
There “cancel any time” is definitely clickable. It signs you up to Amazon prime with one click.
I’ve personally fallen for this, it works and it’s intentional. Anything that tricks a user into clicking on something they didn’t mean to is a dark pattern and asshole design.
Cancel the process of placing the order.
Fuck off, Andy
We’re having a conversation, there’s really no need to be hostile. You’re allowed to have your own view, as am I.
It was a joke that you’re Andy Jassy, the CEO of Amazon, given your constant defense of the company’s predatory practices.
I’ve been pretty clear that Amazon is predatory and well-known to be shitty. I’ve been clear using my own example of how difficult it is to cancel Amazon Prime as a great example of hostile UI design.
It’s possible to have an intelligent conversation about how the specific example used in this post isn’t a very good representation of hostile design, especially compared to the other egregious things Amazon has done and continues to do.
You don’t need to resort to being rude, it’s okay to say you don’t agree.
Sorry about your reading comprehension
On a quick inspection the left barely looks like it’s worth reading and it’s easy to miss the link, so you’re led to thinking there’s a yes and a no button on the right. Click the no button and you’ve subscribed to Prime.
Obviously if you stop and actually look at everything you’ll realise what’s up. But this relies on you rushing and being misled in to signing up, which clearly works for them.
I see your point, and of course each user’s interpretation is going to be different.
But I think you made another good point in your second paragraph - the effectiveness of these is dependent on user ignorance.
I’m not saying by any means that it’s the user’s fault if they fall prey to hostile UI, but there is some responsibility on the user to actually read what they’re clicking before they click, in the sense that you can protect yourself from a lot of scenarios like this just by taking a moment and reading.
I understand that’s easier said than done, trying to help my parents with technical support items is infuriating to watch them click “ok” on a dialog box and then ask you afterwards what it said - like, there’s an easy solution: read, then click. Not the other way around.