Take the 2-minute tour ×
User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Whilst filling out a form on the Royal Mail site this morning, I came across this heresy of form design: the self-negating checkbox...

Bad Royal Mail form! Bad!

This required careful (re)reading to ensure that:

  1. I was actually opting out of the first set of marketing questions
  2. I did not have to tick the second group of boxes as these were default opt-out
  3. ... I was not actually going crazy

The mixed metaphor is confusing enough to me, but I was under the impression that (in EU countries at least) the legal requirement was for all marketing preference questions to now be opt-in by default, not opt-out?

Has any notable comparative research been done into opt-in versus opt-out options on forms to see which are more annoying / easier to understand? The inconsistency across sites just from one country is mindboggling, never mind an apparent lack of international standard. Is it just me failing to wrap my head around things still being opt-out by default or does nobody else actually care?

share|improve this question
1  
This is a recognized dark pattern. I'll see if I can find a research citation and post it. –  Jimmy Breck-McKye Mar 21 '13 at 11:51
1  
this reads very confusing. Wonder how they came up with it. AFAIK in EU you need double opt-in, opt in on the form, and then confirm via mail. And I think prechecked checkboxes are not allowed. You need to actively check it. –  user1721135 Mar 21 '13 at 12:00
4  
@JimmyBreck-McKye I think this falls into the trick questions category darkpatterns.org/library/trick_questions –  TomDoes Mar 21 '13 at 12:14
    
Some useful tidbits, thanks all. When I last read up on significant changes to EU commercial communications, I believe it's actually NOT illegal if the recipient is a business (as it's then B2B solicitation which falls into a different category from B2C?) However it is now, it's still incredibly frustrating when generic sales@ company accounts start getting tons of irrelevant spam. Sad also to see otherwise legitimate companies buying unwashed lists from providers then spamming out. –  Christopher Woods Apr 14 '13 at 15:29

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Mixing opt-in and opt-out is totally bad UX as it leads to a lot of confusion. The meaning of both lists should be consistent, so there should be either opt-out or opt-in for both groups:

Do you want to receive information from us by:

[]post []phone []email []SMS []

Do you want to receive information from our carefully selected premium partners:

[]post []phone []email []SMS []

The reason for mixing the opt-in and opt-out mechanisms may, however, lie in some legal requirements (it sometimes leads to such situations). However, even in this situation it could be presented in a more clear way, e.g.:

Select the options below TO RECEIVE information from us:

[]post []phone []email []SMS []

Select the options below NOT TO RECEIVE information our carefully selected premium partners:

[]post []phone []email []SMS []

Regarding the opt-in and opt-out performance, please refer to this study, showing that opt-ins have significantly better conversion: http://mashable.com/2011/11/28/mailing-list-performance/ Opt-outs during a registration process are confusing and irritating, so it's actually close to adding people to a list without their knowledge.

From my point of view, these results are quite understandable, because:

  • as opt-outs are confusing and users tend to not read the text carefully, they may consider opt-out as opt-in (so they select all the options to get the information not having noticed that they actually opt-out). In this case they will not receive the information at all if they click all the options and will receive the undesired information though they think they have not agreed on it (if they don't tick the options).
  • the CTA in opt-outs calls to opt-out, and CTA is allways suggestive; so if someone tells me to opt-out, I just do.
share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for confirming it's not just me going crazy. I think I may forward this SE URL to Royal Mail's PR department... –  Christopher Woods Apr 14 '13 at 15:31

Opt-in vs opt-out is a legal question and (if it's for communication) in most countries (USA and Europe included). Any agreement to communicate with someone has to be an opt-in, otherwise that communication is legally spam, and anyone receiving it (in a country where it is illegal) may sue you. In fact there are people who make their living suing people that send them spam.

Outside of communication, a checkmark should always be used to select a positive statement. It is both what we have come to expect, as well as being the clearest way to read and scan something quickly.

share|improve this answer

At my company (4 million online customers) we noticed that confronting users with these kind of patterns resulted in harvesting very bad (false) contact information. If users don't want spam, they just don't want spam. That's the easy part. Convincing the marketing department with targets on harvesting quantity instead of quality is the hard part. Bottom line: why would you use tricks on your clients when they are much better at playing it that way?

share|improve this answer
    
I'd then be interested to know what happens to your quality scoring when users simply hit the Spam button in webmail services like GMail - I'm aware it attempts to unsubscribe the customer in the background, but don't know any more about exactly how it discerns exactly how to request an unsub on behalf of the recipient). –  Christopher Woods Apr 14 '13 at 15:27

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.