We used to call ourselves “usability engineers,” but now we call ourselves “user experience specialists.” The change represented a broadening of the field but also it also represented a decreased emphasis on maximizing objective human performance and an increased emphasis on maximizing subjective human satisfaction. That itself isn’t bad, but it pushed our field towards turf traditionally controlled by marketing and the ethical dangers that lurk there. Now we concern ourselves with persuasion and trust, rather than just satisfaction. We are using marketing terms like “branding” and “conversion rates,” words that endear us to the suits that write our checks, but do little if anything for users.
By creating experiences, we blur the boundaries of perception and reality. Is it more important to have the shortest task completion time, or make the users feel like they have the shortest task completion time? When you’re building experiences, the answer is no longer clear. In such a context, it can be easy to convince yourself that deceptive designs are in fact genuine. After all, by creating perceptions, you’re creating reality, so deception is logically impossible.
I’m not imposing an unnecessary re-learning or migration burden on my users. I’m making the web site feel fresh and new.
I’m not upselling a questionable offer. I’m informing the user of their options.
I’m not adding complicating features to a product. I’m improving pride in ownership.
I’m not mis-applying a trendy technology to generate word-of-mouth buzz. I’m making the product cool.
It’s not an unnecessary step in a wizard to appeal to product reviewers. I’m adding the experience of value.
I’m not trapping the user with sunk costs. I’m improving engagement.
I’m not violating best practices or usability standards for the sake of brand differentiation. I’m innovating.
I’m not posting friend counts to subliminally trick users into building huge social networks of strangers. I’m providing game-like fun and motivation.
Users are used to animated advertisements now. It’s no big deal.
Most users will benefit from opting-in, so it’s the default.
It’s not manipulation. It’s persuasion.
Those aboard the Clueless Train who assume that whatever is good for the users must be good for business seem to miss the fundamental conflict between consumer and business –that each wants to get the most from the other for the least cost. One proven method to making a butt-load of money is to screw your consumers just enough so they don’t notice, or at least don’t resent it too much. Sometimes usability is bad for business. Success as measured by market share doesn’t necessarily correlate with providing the best product to the consumer. If you’re clever enough, you can use the web to amplify deceitful sales practices. Has the web made politics more honest or has it fueled the absurd allegations each side makes against the other? Is Microsoft Windows the best user experience available? Is Facebook the best social app technically possible today?
It’s a complicated fix we’ve gotten ourselves into, and I’m not ready with a complete answer. However, one place to start is to ask yourself what your designs really do? Are you designing to sell or designing to use? Are you building for consumers or users? Are you creating an experience for the user or a brand for the company? Are you considering the total human experience or just the experience with the product or company?
Update: I've expanded this answer into a full article A Man of Wealth and Taste. My more complete answer is that we should design for real experiences, not artificial ones. We avoid evil if we design to fulfill existing user wants and needs, rather than creating new wants and needs, and if we design to actually fulfill those wants and needs, not merely appear to fulfill those wants and needs (even to the user).