Quick recap from Part 1: We analysed why Duolingo's "Did you just come back to ghost me again?" notification works so well. Our conclusion: It plays with self-irony instead of guilt, a consistent product personality, honesty, and perfect timing. Check out part 1, "Seriously?" – Duolingo's UX Writing | Part 1: The Anatomy of a Working Notification here.

Why the same tone can motivate and manipulate - depending on context

Here we’ll answer the crucial question: Why does this tone work with Duolingo, but would be toxic with Instagram or TikTok?

Duolingo is a learning tool

• It's about an intrinsic goal: an example of a "pleasurable troublemaker" according to Prof. Matthias Laschke, a small, benevolent disruption that specifically encourages me to stick with it and control my own behaviour reflectively (cf. also Deci & Ryan, 1985)
• Adds value: The app helps me with my personal goals
• Alignment with user goal: The app wants the same thing I do - progress
• Finitude: There is a goal, instead of endless engagement

For comparison: Social Media is an Attention Trap

• Extrinsic goal: The app wants my time, I want, e.g. distraction
• Questionable value: More scrolling ≠ more quality of life
• Misalignment: The app wants my attention to sell it
• Endlessness: There's never enough, never a "finished"

The ethical boundary lies in purpose. : the same UX techniques can be motivating or manipulative – depending on whether they help me achieve my goals or distract me from them. (Cialdini, 2008; Fogg, 2003). Self-Determination Theory, as proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985), provides a crucial psychological foundation. It emphasises that people are particularly motivated and satisfied when their needs for autonomy, competence, and social connectedness are met. This is why honest and transparent design aimed at user well-being is both ethical and effective.

For Practice: A Framework for Ethical Engagement

We have developed a simple and practical question test to check whether an engagement strategy is ethically justifiable:

The 3-Question Method:

1. Does it help the user achieve their own goal?
   • Yes - with Duolingo (learning a language)
   • No - with endless social media doomscrolling
2. Would it still work if we transparently communicate what we're doing?
   • Yes: "We're reminding you because regular practice helps with learning"
   • No: "We're showing you emotional content so you stay longer"
3. Would we want our own children/partners/friends to be addressed this way?

If you can answer all three with "yes," you're probably on the right side.

These three questions are not random, but are based on established frameworks from UX Ethics, such as Sharon Lindberg's Design Ethics at Work (research project on ethical considerations in design) and Ethical Persuasion models (e.g., the TARES Test by Baker & Martinson, 2001, as a conceptual construct showing how to evaluate transparency and user well-being in Persuasive UX).

Our goal was to translate these theoretical principles into practical question logic that product teams can apply directly.

What Designers and Developers can learn from this

1. Tonality is strategic, not decorative

Many teams treat UX writing as an afterthought: "Quickly write a text for the button." But tonality is part of the user experience – sometimes even the crucial part.

When implemented, this means:

• Define your product's personality before you write the first text
• Create a tone-of-voice guide with concrete dos and don'ts
• Test different tones with real users – what is perceived as funny by the team can be annoying for outsiders

2. Know your Product's Context

The tone works with Duolingo. Would it work with a banking app? Disaster! With a meditation app? Completely misses the mark!

Ask yourself:

• What is the user's emotional state in this moment?
• What is the overarching goal of my product and my users?
• What type of relationship should my product have with users?

3. Honesty > Tricks

Users aren't stupid. They notice when you're trying to manipulate them. Duolingo's directness works precisely because it's not disguised..

Here are some alternatives to deceptive patterns:

• Instead of "Only 3 left in stock!" → "Others are also looking at this right now"
• Instead of "Your friends miss you!" → "You have 3 new messages"
• Instead of "Last chance!" → "The offer expires on dd/mm/yy"

4. Humanisation requires Consistency

One funny notification is nice. A consistent personality across all touchpoints is an example of good UX Design.

A checklist for your product:

• Does your app sound the same in onboarding, notifications, and error messages?
• Would users recognise your product's "voice"?
• Does the tonality fit your brand – or does it feel forced?
• What role should your product take on?

Practical Tips: How to develop the right Tone

Step 1: User Research with Focus on Language

Understand how your users think and talk:

• How do your users talk about your product?
• What metaphors do they use?
• What relationship do your users want with the product?

Step 2: Define your Product Personality

Imagine your product as a person:

• What job would they have?
• How would they talk in real life?
• What would they NEVER say?

Step 3: Test in extreme Situations

A good tone shows itself in crises:

• How does your app talk when something goes wrong?
• How does it communicate errors?
• How are users addressed who have been away for a while?

Step 4: Iterate with real Feedback

User exposure will change your tonality. Test, learn from it, and adjust accordingly.

What Duolingo also teaches us: The Power of Microcopy

This notification we are discussing is about 15 words long. But it shows what microcopy can do when it's done well:

• Re-engagement without pressure
• Brand building through consistency
• Emotional connection through humour
• Behaviour change through the right tone

The best UX texts are the ones you show your friends and say, "Look how funny this is!"

Conclusion: UX Writing is UX Design

Duolingo's owl is not a marketing gimmick. It's a carefully developed personality that has a positive effect on the user experience. Every notification, every button text, every error message was designed so that it:

• Fits the Duolingo brand
• Understands their users
• Communicates honestly
• Motivates action – but without manipulating

This is not a coincidence, but a strategy.

And in the end, good UX writing is like good UX overall: invisible when it works and unforgettable when it has an impact.

This is part 2 of the two-part series on UX Writing and Design Ethics. 👉 Part 1 can be read here: The Anatomy of a Perfect Notification

At BIRD UX, we have been developing the strategic foundation for such nuances since 2011: We help our clients develop consistent UX strategies in which content and text are not added as an afterthought, but are considered from the beginning as a fundamental component of the user interface. Tonality is not a question of copywriting – but of product strategy. Sounds like we can help you with your challenges? Feel free to get in touch!

Literature

• Baker, S., & Martinson, D. L. (2001). The TARES Test: Five Principles for Ethical Persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(2–3), 148–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08900523.2001.9679610
• Cialdini, R. B. (2008). Influence (5. Aufl.). Pearson
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum
• ​​Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
• Hassenzahl, M., & Laschke, M. (2015). Pleasurable Troublemakers. In S. P. Walz & S. Deterding (Eds.), The Gameful World (pp. 167–196). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9788.003.0011
• Lindberg, S. (2024). Design Ethics at Work. https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-233188

Article Image Character from https://duolingopress.lingoapp.com/

For months, I successfully ignored Duolingo. Learning French again? Nice idea, but somehow lost between work, teaching assignments, and psychology studies. Yesterday: Downloaded an app update, opened it briefly, closed it again. So... yeah: did nothing.

Dann hab ich später auf mein Handy geschaut  und da ist sie, diese Notification: “Did you just come back to ghost me again? Now do a French lesson!” Ich musste echt kurz lachen. Dann kam die UX Designerin in mir durch: Why does this work so well and "catch" my attention?

From my own experience: What other apps say

To understand why Duolingo's approach is special, let's look at how other apps communicate with inactive users:

• Garmin: Status "unproductive" after a 15 km run on Sunday at 7 am (Um... thanks?)
• To-Do-Apps: "12 overdue tasks are waiting for you" (I know. That's why I'm not opening the app, haha.)
• Social Media: "You're missing what your friends are posting right now!" (FOMO as a business model.)
• Meditation-Apps: "Your 30-day streak is lost 😔" (Note the irony that a meditation app creates stress...)

So, in summary, most apps use a combination of guilt, artificial urgency, loss aversion (= you're "losing" something), and social pressure. Duolingo does something different.

The Anatomy of Good UX Writing: What Duolingo Gets Right

1. Self-irony instead of guilt-tripping

„Did you just come back to ghost me again?”

The app says what I'm thinking myself – before I can formulate it. It knows my behaviour (downloading an update, opening it to... well... do nothing) and comments on it with a wink. No accusation, but rather "I see through you, and that's okay."

Why this works: People react defensively to accusations, but openly to humour. The self-ironic tone signals: "We don't take ourselves too seriously – and we don't judge your behaviour either."

But wait – isn't this also guilt-tripping?

At first glance, you might think: The "ghosting" accusation, that's also guilt induction! But there's a crucial psychological nuance here.

Classic guilt induction (à la Garmin)

• Focus is on failure: "You are unproductive"
• Identity level is attacked (even if implicitly): "You are inactive/lazy/unmotivated" (addresses the person instead of the behaviour)
• Focus on past and loss aversion: Emphasis is on what you've already lost.
• Comparison with others: "Others have already achieved this and that..."

The emotional effect is usually shame and resignation, so rather negative. Duolingo's approach doesn't judge you:

• Keeps focus on your behaviour: "You're ghosting" (not "You are a ghoster")
• Stays on the situational level: Describes what you do, not who you are (Gollwitzer, 1993, 2006) (vgl. Gollwitzer, 1993,2006) 
• Is present-oriented: "Now do..." (call to action)
• No comparison with others: Just you and the owl

It does have an emotional effect, but a positive one: You feel caught, but you have to smile. That leaves a good feeling rather than a bad one.

The crucial difference: Duolingo names the behaviour playfully, without judging the person. That's a huge psychological difference. I can change behaviour, but not my identity. Additionally, the owl presents itself as the "victim" ("...ghost me"), which humorously turns the tables. I don't feel bad about myself, but smile about the situation. This doesn't trigger defensiveness, but opens me up to the call to action.

2. Anthropomorphisation* with personality

The Duolingo owl isn't a neutral learning AI. It's a personality – perhaps sometimes slightly passive-aggressive, always persistent, but ultimately – and this is the thing: on your side. It reminds us of people we know: the friend who asks, "When will we finally see each other again?" or the trainer who says, "Great that you're here – now actually do something!"

That differs from other apps: The owl is consistent in its personality. Not sometimes sweet, sometimes strict, sometimes desperate. It has a recognisable character, and that's exactly what creates a relationship.

*Anthropomorphisation = psychological attribution of human characteristics to a non-living object 

3. Honesty over manipulation

„Now do a French lesson!“

No false urgency ("Only 2 more hours!"), no fake scarcity ("Last day!"), no emotional blackmail. Instead: a direct request. Almost cheeky, but very honest.

Psychologically clever: This almost cheeky directness feels refreshing in a world full of manipulative notifications. We're so used to deceptive patterns that honesty is surprising and positive.

4. Timing and context

The notification didn't come randomly. It came exactly after I opened the app and closed it again – without completing a French lesson. That's precise behavioural tracking, but in service of a meaningful intervention. (Fogg, 2003)

The context makes a difference. With a shopping app, the same timing would be creepy ("You looked but didn't buy?"). With a learning tool, it's legitimate. Read more about context in Part 2 (coming soon!). 

What we've learned so far

Duolingo's notification works because it:

• comments on behaviour instead of judging identity
• Has a consistent personality that creates a relationship
• Is honest instead of manipulative
• Understands context and is perfectly timed

But here comes the crucial question: Why does this tone work so well with Duolingo – and would be toxic with Instagram or TikTok? Where is the ethical boundary between charming motivation and manipulative retention?

Part 2 of this article will cover:

• Why the same tonality motivates with Duolingo – and manipulates with Instagram
• A 3-question framework for ethical engagement design
• 4 practical steps to the right tone for your product

Follow us on LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com/company/birdux-studio) or Bluesky (bsky.app/birdux) so you don't miss Part 2. 

Literature

• ​​Fogg, B. J. (2003). Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
• Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). „Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans.“ American Psychologist.
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). „Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes.“ Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
• Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). „Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes.“ Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Rationality in action: Contemporary approaches (pp. 140–170). Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted from „Econometrica“ 47 (1979), 263-91)

Article Image Character from https://duolingopress.lingoapp.com/

What Are Deceptive Patterns / Dark Patterns?

The DSA defines Dark Patterns in its recitals as practices in online interfaces that are "designed to distort or substantially impair the ability of users to make autonomous and informed choices or decisions."
In simpler terms, these are deceptive design techniques intended to trick users into making choices that may not be in their best interest, but are beneficial for the service or platform provider.

What Exactly Does the DSA Prohibit?

Article 25 of the Digital Services Act prohibits online platforms from designing user interfaces in a way that misleads or manipulates users. However, this is where things become complicated, as the law employs intentionally vague terms that necessitate interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Expressions like: “Unduly prominently displayed”, “Excessively difficult”, “Deceptive default settings”...all leave room for debate.

• So, when exactly is something “unduly prominent”?
• When does a cancellation flow become “excessively difficult”?
• And when does a “default setting” cross the line into “deceptive”?

The DSA offers some examples—such as repeated prompts to make the same selection or deliberately complicated unsubscribe processes—but ultimately, the exact threshold is often unclear. A grey area, indeed.

Who Decides When the Line Is Crossed?

The DSA’s open-ended language allows for flexibility in addressing emerging manipulation techniques, but it also introduces inevitable ambiguity.
In practice, enforcement and interpretation fall to:

• National courts and supervisory authorities
• The European Commission, which may issue further guidance
• Consumer protection organisations, which can initiate legal action

Assessments are typically based on an objective standard: Would an average user’s ability to make a free and informed choice be significantly impaired? iCommon evaluation criteria include

• Level of effort required
• Clarity and comprehensibility
• Number of clicks
• Visual design choices
• Comparison with alternative options
• Observable effects on user behaviour

Ultimately, the decision often relies on expert opinions, user testing, and comparisons with industry norms, creating both flexibility and legal uncertainty for designers and businesses alike.

What Does This Mean for Us as Designers?

We believe this legal "grey zone" presents both a challenge and an opportunity. On the one hand, it offers some room for interpretation. On the other hand, it forces all decision-makers—from product managers to executives—to take ethical design seriously. It pushes us to pause and ask:

• Are we helping users make informed, autonomous choices?
• Or are we nudging them towards decisions that serve the business model more than the user?

Final Thoughts

Yes, the Digital Services Act leaves room for interpretation when it comes to Deceptive Patterns. But rather than viewing this as a legal loophole, we see it as a call to action for designers, marketers, product owners, and leadership teams alike.
Because in the end, it’s not just about compliance or avoiding penalties. It’s about building long-term trust in a digital world where transparency and user autonomy are no longer optional, but essential pillars of any future-proof digital strategy.

Sources:

• VERORDNUNG (EU) 2022/2065 DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS UND DES RATES vom 19. Oktober 2022 über einen Binnenmarkt für digitale Dienste und zur Änderung der Richtlinie 2000/31/EG (Gesetz über digitale Dienste) (Language DE): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX32022R2065 (especially Recital No. 6, Article 25)
• Dark Patterns nach dem DSA (Language DE):: https://haerting.de/wissen/dark-patterns-nach-dem-dsa/
• The Digital Service Act (Language EN):: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en

In our experience, companies and organisations often rely on gut feeling or subjective assessments when it comes to UX. The effectiveness of UX or the status quo is rarely recorded - i.e. measured. As a result, the value of UX is not really "tangible", processes are optimised based on gut feeling, and budgets for this resulting "spongy" construct called "user experience" are therefore understandably released less and less.

Is measuring the user's experience important?

Without taking stock, you don't know what should be optimised - and without measuring the success of the UX measures implemented, it remains unclear whether they are actually effective. This is because no one knows exactly or can specify what the adjustments made after the last user survey or usability test have achieved.

This often seems to be because companies and organisations don't quite know where to start or where to begin to measure or "how to do it right".  

For the sake of simplicity, hard figures from the analysis tools are often used as indicators of whether the user's experience is "good" or "bad". However, as these (alone) often do not provide comprehensive insights, companies are quickly disappointed by the process and put the UX measurement on the back burner again. 

However, there are various ways to gain good insights into the UX, to measure and evaluate it.

UX is measurable - on the like it depends

To measure UX, qualitative and quantitative usability tests and many standardised questionnaires for the user experience are available. One of these questionnaires is the UEQ (Laugwitz et al., 2008). The UEQ allows a quick assessment of various aspects of software quality based on six factors. The AttrakDiff (Hassenzahl et al., 2003) captures various qualities such as usefulness and usability (is it simple or complicated?) but also the so-called "hedonic" Quality (Does it feel valuable or inferior? Is it original or rather conventional?) 

Usability tests also play a central role in recording the user experience. Through observation and direct feedback from users, as well as the opportunity to ask specific questions, we gain valuable insights into actual usage and potential areas for improvement. These tests help us to identify real problems and continuously optimise not only pure usability, but also the user experience.

Can you measure UX with KPIs?

The conversion rate or the abandonment rate are often used as indicators of a "good" or "bad" UX. However, in our opinion, UX cannot be measured using such business key figures - the so-called key performance indicators (KPIs) - but rather about them on the user experience close. However, this should be treated with caution and is therefore associated with the risk of misinterpretation. This is because it does not measure the actual user experience, but captures a snapshot and trends of key business figures. It is therefore primarily used to measure business success - and various factors can influence why this increases or decreases.

It may be possible to recognise a trend - particularly with the two key figures mentioned (conversion rate and abandonment rate) - as to whether the UX measures implemented are bringing about the desired business success. However, so many other variables (confounding variables) play a role here - making it difficult to make an improved user experience (partly) responsible for this.   

The same applies to many quantitative variant tests such as A/B tests. We will only find out that variant A performs better than variant B - but we don't necessarily know why - and whether this is due to a positive user experience. 

What makes the measurement of UX so challenging makes: User experience is a latent construct

In order to be able to measure UX, we first need to briefly clarify what we are actually dealing with "in terms of measurement": It is important to understand that the user experience is not a property of a product or an interface. A website or app does not "have" a UX. Rather, the experience "happens" in the mind of the individual user as a reaction to their interaction with a digital product or service. 
In scientific terms, the user experience is therefore a so-called latent construct - This means that it can not direct can only be derived or inferred from other - again observable - factors. However, these other factors (which all together represent the user experience) must first be defined using special and complex statistical methods (factor analyses). This is the only way to ensure that what is then measured actually reflects the user experience and not just anything else. This is precisely where the standardised questionnaires listed above come into play, as these use factor analyses to determine and ultimately query the factors that reflect the user experience.

Recommendation: Continuously measure UX with a mix of methods 

Through a good combination of various methods, we can usually gain good insights into user behaviour and then nothing stands in the way of continuous optimisation of the user experience. 

Usability tests, for example, usually provide deep insights into how users actually interact with the product. By analysing task completion, user behaviour and ongoing user comments during these tests, specific problems and potential for improvement can be identified. The tests also provide good insights into user thinking.  

Usability tests and standardised UX questionnaires should therefore always supplement the insights gained through pure key figures - e.g. from KPIs - because they help to gain a comprehensive picture of the user experience.  

We also always recommend continuously measuring the UX in order to assess whether an implemented UX optimisation was successful or not. The methods mentioned above are also a great way to take an initial inventory to find out where you stand and what needs to be optimised. This allows you to make good strategic decisions - or avoid making the wrong ones.

Key takeaways: Measuring the UX means minimising risk

It is important that companies can evaluate the UX measures they have implemented to assess their effectiveness by measuring them or taking stock so that they can make informed decisions about where adjustments are needed and how they should be prioritised. This ensures that these services and products are well received by users and customers. It also serves to minimise the company's risk - as it avoids expensive bad investments in development based on gut feeling and assumptions. 

The use of a mix of methods - i.e. the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods - allows companies to gain valuable insights into the user-friendliness, emotional impact and general effectiveness of the product or service. This allows insight-based and informed decisions to be made, which can improve the user experience and thus significantly increase the success of the business.

Literature

Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., & Koller, F. (2003). AttrakDiff: A questionnaire to measure perceived hedonic and pragmatic quality. In G. Szwillus & J. Ziegler (Eds.), Man & Computer 2003 (Vol. 57, pp. 187-196). Vieweg+Teubner Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19

Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. (2008). Construction and Evaluation of a User Experience Questionnaire. In A. Holzinger (Ed.), HCI and Usability for Education and Work (pp. 63-76). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6

About this article series  

In our series "UX myths debunked", we clear up common misconceptions in user experience design and share our views on them. You can find the link to the first part below the article.

If you liked this article, you can read part 1 here: UX myths debunked: UX design is only relevant for websites and apps.

Would you like to improve the user experience of your service or product?

Write to us or give us a call! We support you with questions about measuring UX, usability tests, interviews and the development of ideas and concepts, and advise you on tricky UX challenges or frustrated users. 

We are happy to offer a non-binding initial consultation to get to know each other and look forward to hearing from you and your concerns!

Among other things, you will learn why UX design goes far beyond websites and apps, why aesthetics should never "trump" functionality and why everyone on the team should contribute to creating a positive customer or user experience.

We start with the myth that UX design is only relevant for apps and websites. Have fun!

It is a fairly widespread myth that UX design is only relevant for websites or apps. In fact, UX design affects digital and physical products and services. This can affect mobile apps and software, but also physical products such as household appliances. 

To do this, we need to expand a little and explain our understanding of UX:

What is "UX" anyway and why is UX relevant? 

In everyday use, the term "UX" describes both a professional discipline (the "UX people") and, above all, the resulting outcome (the user experience) 

As UX designers, we use various methods in our professional discipline to find out what users and customers want and need in order to design a product or service for them that results in the most positive user experience (UX) possible.

This positive UX is generally expected to reduce "friction points" (friction) or obstacles between a task someone wants to complete and the tool they are using to complete that task. 

This results in the user experience - in other words, something that users *experience*. This is determined by a variety of factors that are quite extensive. We believe that no one person or team can claim to be fully responsible for this, because much of it is in our hands and some of it is certainly not. But what we do have control over, we believe we should do well.

UX as a cross-product result of interactions and perceptions 

We distinguish - like some others - not strictly between CX, i.e. the customer experience, and UX. This may also have something to do with *how* you look at "UX": Do you see it as more product-orientated or more process-orientated? We see it more process-orientated and therefore *every* interaction with a company, product or service contributes to the user experience. And both CX and UX pursue a common goal: design that is orientated towards people and their context. 

In this sense, UX encompasses all aspects of a user's interaction with a product or service. From initial contact to use and aftercare, UX has a significant influence on how a user perceives a company and what experience they have with its offerings. At a time when customers and users have high expectations of the user-friendliness and effectiveness of products and services, a positive UX is also becoming an indispensable competitive advantage.

For example, UX design is relevant for a physical product such as the Thermomix in order to make the actual operation simple and easy to understand. But also the "before" and "after" - the Process from the purchase decision to the first use are important  because all of this ultimately shapes the experience: What expectations do I have of the appliance? How is the Thermomix packaged? Will I cut my fingers because the appliance is very difficult to unpack? Are the operating instructions simple and clear or do I have to work my way through a whole jumble of irrelevant information? Is it easy for me to get in touch if I have any questions or do I have a lot of work to do?  

Other examples concern e.g. newsletter communication, how is the approach here, how is the tone of voice, do I feel comfortable when I read this or do I rather feel pressurised into constantly buying more products? 

So wherever customers and users interact with a product or service, UX design also plays a role. 

Not communicating is also communicating

Conversely, this also means that it can also play a role if something is missing or not presented: e.g. a lack of contact options also shapes the experiences of customers and users. This may communicate that you do not want to be contacted, which in turn leaves an impression on customers or users. 

As Paul Watzlawick said so beautifully: You can't not communicate. With this in mind - happy UX Mythbusting!

Do you have any questions?

Write to us or give us a call! We support you in the development of ideas and concepts and advise you on tricky UX challenges or frustrated users. We are happy to offer a non-binding initial meeting to get to know each other and look forward to hearing from you and your concerns!

Today is Earth Day! A good occasion for us to actively ask ourselves once again how we can design technologies in such a way that they have a positive impact on our environment and are ecologically sustainable.

Two quick ideas:

1. Technologies should also remain accessible/usable for older end devices and poor internet connectionsThis avoids electronic waste and is also good for accessibility. This also includes the Right to Repair.
2. We can give users the opportunity to make more environmentally friendly decisions or strive for more sustainable behaviour. Matthias Laschke's research topic pleasurable troublemakers offers a veritable treasure trove of inspiration and great products dedicated to sustainability. One of our personal favourites is the Shower calendar.

We will briefly go into this in more detail, as it is super interesting from a UX perspective:

The Shower Calendar is designed to help people monitor and reduce their own water consumption and thus live more sustainably, thereby helping to protect the environment. It is an interactive visualisation - the data comes from the current water consumption. Dr Laschke's website explains exactly how this works.

Self-determination theory can promote intrinsically motivated behaviour in UX design

The interesting thing is that the design of the calendar follows a humanistic perspective on motivational psychology - namely the approach of intrinsically rather than extrinsically motivated behaviour. This is achieved by making it possible to experience the three basic needs developed in Deci & Ryan's (1987, 2000) self-determination theory:

1. Experience of competence: You feel competent and successful in pursuing goals (addresses self-efficacy)
2. Experience of autonomyYou experience yourself as the originator of your own actions, you can determine what you do yourself and are not determined by others
3. The Experience of social integrationYou feel integrated and connected to a social group.

Experience of competence, autonomy and social integration

Experience of competence

The experience of competence is conveyed through the immediate, direct feedback and the self-efficacy experienced as a result ("I can manage that"): If you shower for too long and therefore use too much water, this has a direct effect on the visualisation, giving you the opportunity to take countermeasures and change your behaviour in line with the goal you have set. The desire to change behaviour can also be stimulated. In this way, you perceive yourself as an active, acting being. The calendar thus supports the image of human beings that can be derived from self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which postulates that people "have a tendency to grow (psychologically)".

Experience of autonomy

The Experience autonomy and freedom of choice is achieved by the fact that the calendar does not directly regulate behaviour - in other words, it does not dictate what you have to do. It is your own, self-initiated Action necessary. The calendar gives me as a person through insight into my behaviour the possibility to change myself. Behind this lies the principle:"You can" instead of "you shall". It therefore gives people a choice: this starts with the fact that you have to decide for yourself whether to press the initial button so that the measurement starts at all or whether to leave it alone. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1987), this aspect of freedom of choice can promote intrinsic motivation (cf. e.g. Dorsch - Lexikon der Psychologie, 17th ed., p. 1491. Verlag Hans Huber). The calendar does not provide any specific instructions on how to save water. It merely gives us feedback on our current and past water consumption. The design of the ambiguous feedback is also strongly emphasised. Laschke et al. (2011) call this "Ambient feedback". The feedback is therefore neither paternalistic, judgemental or obtrusively annoying, but rather happens "incidentally". You don't feel coerced, pressured or even controlled by the calendar feedback, which is also conducive to intrinsically motivated behaviour (see Dorsch - Lexikon der Psychologie, 17th edition, p. 1491. Verlag Hans Huber).

Social integration

The Social integration can be experienced through "gamification" approaches, i.e. the calendar invites you to compete with family members or flatmates who also use the calendar, for example. This also makes the calendar a topic of conversation, e.g. when eating together (cf. Laschke et al., 2011). This can have a positive effect on satisfying the basic need for belonging (Deci & Ryan, 1987). As a group, you can pursue a goal - namely to practise the sustainable use of water as a resource and enjoy shared successes.

Irrespective of the three factors, the visualisation of consumption does not aestheticise "misbehaviour". This is achieved, for example, by long showers (i.e. high consumption) leading to a less "pretty" - or more sparse - visualisation on the display: the dots representing the shower become smaller with high consumption. The design of the interactive graphic is therefore ultimately set up in such a way that the reduction in water consumption is aestheticised (or "rewarded") by having a colourful, rich pattern on the display at the end. "Good" behaviour is therefore aestheticised with a rich-looking display, while undesirable behaviour tends to result in a "sparse", less aesthetic/pretty display.

Evaluation of usefulness

A prototype of the calendar was also evaluated. It was tested in two households. Specifically, the participants mentioned that the calendar appealed to their ambition to change, which led to personal goal setting (Laschke et al., 2011). There were also positive reports about the motive for connection "[...] Beyond resulting feelings of achievement, competence and control due to the improvement, its "social features" (individualisation, persistence) led to communication and competition, and in the case of success, to feelings of popularity and acceptance." (Laschke et al. 2011).

Also important: making something abstract understandable and tangible

Water consumption is quite difficult to estimate. But this visualisation of daily water consumption when showering by means of immediate feedback on behaviour also makes the previously rather abstract Water consumption can be experienced and "grasped" by people. It is thus transformed from an abstract concept (difficult to estimate consumption) into something "concrete" that I as a person can see and thus understand over time. In this way, sustainable behaviour can be internalised and thus promoted.

What else can you think of to make technology more sustainable?

Literature

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024-1037. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024

Matthias Laschke, Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, and Marius Tippkämper. 2011. with a little help from a friend: a shower calendar to save water. In CHI '11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 633-646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979659

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Shower Calendar on the website of Dr Laschke. http://www.pleasurabletroublemakers.com/shower-calendar (here you can also see a demo video for visualisation)

Picture credits: Illustration in the article picture Event illustrations by Storyset

In this context, an increasing number of terms are being bandied about in the UX design world to describe this attitude: user-centred design, human-centred design, humanity-centred design, value-centred design or also society-centred design - just to name a few terms. 

Ultimately, all of these terms are about sensitising people to the fact that design not only affects one "user", but also an entire ecosystem around this user. After all, the user and the products and services we design do not live in a vacuum. 

The socio-ecological responsibility of design

Despite the many terminologies and the different understandings of what exactly is meant by what, much of what is discussed today was already considered at the outset:

In Don Normans Publication "User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction", the social context of technology was already considered (Norman & Draper, 1986).

Another early thought leader, Viktor Papanekdescribed in the book "Design for the real world. Human Ecology and Social Change" already emphasises the responsibility of designers in the first sentence: "There are professions more harmful than industrial design, but only a few" (Papanek, 1984).

We therefore do not wish to adhere to terminology and strict distinctions between e.g. user-centred design vs human-centred design hang up. We assume that all terms are about communicating that the social or societal responsibility of design must be included and considered in the design process, because our work also has an impact on other stakeholders such as other people who are not direct users of our product or service, as well as society as a whole and the environment.

Why the socio-ecological perspective on experience design is becoming increasingly important

In current practice - in our experience - the focus is in fact very often only on users.and the stakeholdersin the narrower sense. The aim is to develop products and services that solve people's problems - the primary focus here is on the "needs" of users ("user needs") and solutions are then developed on this basis. As the company developing the products and services is aiming for growth and therefore financial, measurable success with these products and services, the needs of these stakeholders are also taken into account. However, there is too often a lack of inclusion of other spatial, social or cultural contexts that may be affected by the product. These contexts are simply often either underestimated or forgotten.

The Times They Are A-Changin'

We are currently in a period in which a change in perception is taking place. The reasons for this can be manifold and certainly influence each other. 

The effects of Ubicomp (omnipresence of computers, invisibility of systems) is now socially perceptible and even a topic in popular TV series such as Black Mirror. As a result, the implications of technology in relation to society are increasingly being discussed within the tech industry. 

Social movements and activists such as Fridays for Future and the Last Generation are using the media to address the impact of people, their lifestyles and therefore also their products on the planet. This also means that the impact of technology is being thematised. Sometimes to an extent that has a negative impact on the measurable success of the product, e.g. the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies or NFTs. 

Another possible aspect is the growing market of the platform economy (see Platform economy on Wikipedia), whose on-demand and convenience services are incredibly practical and convenient for the individual, but which can have negative socio-ecological effects that affect us all. Examples include mobility service providers for e-scooters, free same-day deliveries from large online shop portals and food delivery services with very short delivery times. 

You don't have to use these services yourself to be directly affected by them. For example, who has never had to dodge an e-scooter parked in the middle of the pavement in an urban environment? Services that affect uninvolved people and thus cause annoyance have almost certainly neglected spatial, social and/or cultural contexts in their design. 

The platform economy is only possible through technology - a technology that sometimes affects citizens to such an extent that they harbour a personal grudge against these services.

Final Thoughts

Technical developments and various social movements have increasingly sensitised society to the influence of technology on the (social) environment. Designers and companies will have to respond to this. Design, which also places society at the centre of the development of products and services, is currently becoming increasingly important. The aim is to ensure that technology fulfils the needs and requirements of society as a whole and not just individual stakeholders.

Outlook

We will soon be presenting a proposal for a model on this topic that can help in practice to integrate the socio-ecological impact of products or services into the design process.

This article is part of the series "What's coming, what's staying 2023". In this series, we would like to present some topics that are important to us for this year (and beyond), that are increasingly being discussed in the industry and that are important for product and service development in companies - i.e. product managers, developers and UX designers. You can find the first part on inclusive design here here.

Sources and literature tips

Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User Centred System Design: New Perspectives on Human-computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Papanek, V. (1984). Design for the Real World. Human Ecology and Social Change. Thames and Hudson.

Rico Grimm: Why NFTs are not likely to destroy the climate (but Bitcoin is) https://krautreporter.de/4200-warum-nfts-eher-nicht-das-klima-zerstoren-bitcoin-aber-schon 

Header Picture: People illustrations by Storyset

In this series of articles we would like to - as already in 2020  - We would like to present some topics that are important to us, that are also increasingly being discussed in the industry and that are important for product and service development in companies - i.e. for product managers, developers, UX designers and the company itself. And because there's so much text, this time we'd rather break it down into small chunks or articles. 

Let's start with an old acquaintance - a Evergreen so to speak:

#1 Inclusive design

As early as 2020, we have already Importance of Inclusive design and the consideration of diversity in design written. Inclusive design is and remains an important topic for product development and therefore also for UX professionals and pretty much every company.

Generally speaking, inclusive design refers to designing products and services in such a way that they are accessible, usable and helpful for all people - regardless of their abilities, limitations and socio-economic background. 

The Business Case The benefits of inclusive design are obvious, as it can bring a number of advantages for both the company and its customers, such as increased customer satisfaction and the development of new market segments. 

Inclusive design can also lead to cost savings for a company. If a company pays attention to accessibility and usability from the outset, it can avoid costly retrofits or changes after a product has gone to market. A serious negative example of exploding costs due to Subsequent fixing of problems We see this every day in our cities: wheelchair users and mothers with pushchairs who need help getting to the platform because there is still a lack of barrier-free access to the (underground) railway network. This is associated with very costly and lengthy, sometimes almost impossible retrofits for the cities - not to mention the disappointed people who are practically left out in the cold. "You are not disabled, you become disabled" is unfortunately a sentence from the movement that is sad but true.

Inclusive design also means destigmatisation - two best practices

As early as 2004, Alan Cooper wrote in his book "The Inmates are running the asylum" has thought about inclusive design, because his concept of persona development is actually aimed at precisely that. As he later explained in his book "About Face" says: "A primary persona will not be satisfied by a design targeted at any other persona in the set. However, if the primary persona is the target, all other personas will not, at least, be dissatisfied." - i.e. the main design target (the primary persona) should include all other design targets (secondary personas) - i.e. the primary persona should have the greatest possible degree of inclusion. 

An illustrative example: If, for example, an underground train travels into a station with level access and exit, the needs of wheelchair users are not taken into account.These could, for example, represent a primary persona / the main design target: Because for them (the wheelchair usersThe underground is usable for people with disabilities, they don't need any help and feel less restricted, and no one else suffers any disadvantages.

Figure 1 Inclusive design best practice: people with disabilities could be primary personas for public transport. Ground-level accessibility is a benefit for everyone. Image by: https://www.bvg.de/de/service-und-kontakt/barrierefrei-unterwegs

Cooper also explicitly states in "About Face" that OXO Good Grips as a good example. OXO household products were originally specially for the needs of users with arthritis designed. The aim was not only to design cooking utensils that were comfortable to hold, but also to set a new aesthetic trend that would not stigmatise the intended user as 'ill' - as other products for people with arthritis did. This unprecedented aesthetic for arthritis-friendly household utensils started a new trend - and was seen as viable and attractive by all potential customers - not just people with arthritis. OXO Good Grips is now one of the market leaders worldwide when it comes to household items. 

Figure 2: Inclusive design best practice: The household utensils from OXO Good Grips were primarily developed for people with arthritis - but appeal to both people with and without arthritis.

Companies benefit from inclusive design

To summarise, the business case for inclusive design is clear. It can lead to greater market potential, higher customer satisfaction and loyalty, a better brand reputation as such and cost savings for an organisation. It is a win-win situation for both the company and its customers, as it improves the overall user experience and makes it more accessible for all. 

We would like to take a closer look at one topic relating to inclusive design at this point, as this is increasingly being discussed in the industry: Neurodiversity.

Neurodiversity 

What is neurodiversity? 

When we talk about inclusion, we also have to talk about so-called "neurodiversity". This includes, for example, the autism spectrum, AD(H)S, dyscalculia, dyslexia, etc. The concept of neurodiversity recognises that the human brain can be very diverse in terms of its development and functioning. It therefore questions the concept of "normality". The recognition of neurodiversity advocates that neurological diversity is a manifestation of social diversity and thus turns away from pathologising people's neurological make-up as "sick" - in the sense of "this is not "normal" or "this is a disorder". 

Neurodiversity is therefore just as important as other forms of diversity - e.g. cultural, ethnic and gender diversity.

Why is it important to include neurodiversity in product development?ken?

One of the most important reasons in general is that thinking about neurodiversity can help to ensure that products and services are accessible and usable for people with a wide range of cognitive abilities, spectrums and limitations.

Thinking about users with autism, AD(H)S or dyscalculia, for example, can significantly improve the usability of products and services for them - just as we take care to make the design user-friendly and accessible for users with physical and/or sensory limitations and impairments (e.g. visual impairments, etc.). For example, it is known that people with ADHD be visually overwhelmed by long text deserts or too many items on a display and lose focus because everything feels like it's blurring into a mush and /or on the other hand side are quickly bored and underchallenged and can become impatient very quickly. This alone has direct implications for the design.

Furthermore, taking neurodiversity into account in product development can lead to innovative, novel and effective solutions: By using targeted research to take into account the needs of users with a wide range of cognitive abilities and/or limitations, designers can develop innovative, new and effective solutions.This gives the designers many new perspectives and insights that inspire new approaches to problem solving. In addition, designers canThis can lead to the creation of products and services that are more likely to fulfil the needs of a wider range of users, which can lead to the development of new market segments and a higher market share as well as satisfied users and customers.

Inclusive design starts with research 

We can only advocate involving as diverse a spectrum of people/users as possible in the research phases time and time again in order to gain as much knowledge as possible. This is the only way to ensure that the needs and perspectives of a wide range of users are taken into account. We always recommend including people with various physical or sensory permanent and/or temporary as well as situational limitations, older people, people with different cultural backgrounds and also specifically neurodiverse people in interviews and usability test sessions. This constant integration of as diverse a range of people as possible in teams and companies can also help to recognise and eliminate implicit stereotypes and prejudices in the design process in the long term, as well as Inclusion by default which leads to fairer and more equitable products and services for all of us.

Final Thoughts

Considering and recognising neurodiversity as part of social diversity in product design can lead to more inclusive, accessible and innovative products/services. This allows companies to launch products and services that are more likely to fulfil the needs of a wider range of users, which in turn can lead to a higher market share and greater customer satisfaction. Definitely a topic we recommend keeping on your radar.

Announcement:

By the way, in March Katrin Suetterlin within the framework of the Berlin Ladies that UX meetups will be talking about neurodiversity, a topic she has dedicated herself to, among other things. Stay tuned - we will announce it on all channels, it will be exciting. 

Read more:

UX Writing for Everyone: What Neurodiversity can Teach us https://medium.com/counterarts/ux-writing-and-neurodiversity-a51a319d8c19

Inclusive design - toolkit and manual https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/design/inclusive http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/

13 Inspiring Talks on Inclusive Design https://uxmastery.com/15-inspiring-talks-on-inclusive-design/

Header Picture: People illustrations by Storyset

Visual search is a frequent part of daily life. For instance, at a concert, we might look for a friend by focusing on distinguishing features such as blonde hair and a red jumper. In psychology, this person is referred to as the"target stimulus"or simply the"target".

Visual search involves perception and attention, helping us locate relevant objects in complex environments. In psychological terms, irrelevant objects are called "distractors."

Visual search is essential because our cognitive capacity cannot process all visual information simultaneously. This process is also critical in interface design, enabling users to quickly locate specific apps or elements.

An example from everyday (digital) life

I often tap the wrong app icon when trying to open FaceTime, especially when multiple apps share the same colour. This illustrates the challenge of distinguishing between similar visual features.

The Feature Integration Theory

The Feature Integration Theory by Anne Treisman and Garry Gelade (1980) offers an explanation for this phenomenon. According to this theory, we perceive objects in two steps. 

In the first step, basic visual characteristics such as colour, movement, or the orientation or shape of an object are automatically (and therefore swiftly) recognised and processed (so-called pre-attentive stage, as no attention is required from us here).

However, the combination and integration of these individual features of an object to perceive it as a whole (also known as "conjunction") is a slower process that requires our attention. This phase (attentive stage) is needed because conscious information processing takes longer than the first automatic process.

In the example above, I have many green apps on my display. Colour perception happens very quickly and unconsciously (pre-attentive stage), which explains why one taps on the wrong app. Only in the second stage (attentive stage) do I perceive "finer" details such as the specific icon (camera, arrows, etc.) in combination with the colour, and my brain forms "FaceTime Icon" or "Whatsapp Icon". We - or rather our brain - integrate or "conjugate" all the characteristics of the object into a whole.

The classic experiment

Let's try it out with the classic experiment adapted from Treisman and Gelade (1980): Try to find the blue "X" in the following graphic. The blue "X" is our target stimulus, and it is surrounded by so-called "interfering stimuli" that are irrelevant to us.

Feature condition: Find the blue "X".

Ok, that was very easy, wasn't it? We can also try the same thing again with several disruptive elements..

We can see that our blue "X" pops out, even with several interfering elements (Pop-out effect), allowing us to identify it very quickly. We look at all objects at the same time and can still recognise the blue "X" among all the other interfering elements very quickly. This happens so fast because we use the automatic, parallel processing mentioned above: We simply look at the objects that are within our field of vision, perceive them all simultaneously, and our target stimulus still "jumps out" at us due to its unique property, which it shares with none of the other objects in the vicinity - the blue colour. 

Let's continue with our experiment. We will now try to find the green letter "T" in our graph (integration condition):

Did you find the green T? If yes, that probably took longer, didn't it? Since we are no longer just looking for a unique feature, our target object no longer "stands out". As a result, finding the target stimulus seems much more difficult because it is surrounded by other green letters as well as other "T's". Our target stimulus (the green T) shares features with all of our interfering objects: the green colour of the letter "X" & the shape with the purple "T".

Therefore, a close inspection of each individual object is required to combine the features (shape and colour). If an object is not our target object, we move on to the next object until we discover our target object. This corresponds to a serial, step-by-step processing or a serial search process. That takes time.

In the first two experiments ("Find the blue X" - the so-called feature or characteristic condition), not even the search time is affected by the number of interfering elements. The target object is recognised automatically, unconsciously, and therefore very quickly during a pre-attentive level due to its unique feature. "Colour"has been recognised. We do not need directed, i.e., conscious attention to identify our target object, but use rapid parallel information processing and thus a parallel search.

In the third experiment (integration condition), however, the search time increases with the number of visible interfering elements, as we are forced to focus our attention on the interfering objects in order to find our target object. This leads to slow serial processing and, therefore, a serial search. We "scan" each element and check whether it has the characteristics of our target object.

What does this mean for Interface Design?

If several objects have too many features in common, it can become difficult for us to find what we are looking for. The Feature Integration Theory is a scientific approach explaining this phenomenon, allowing us to take it into account when making design decisions. 

Let's remember the first example with Google symbols: The features are all too similar; they have a lot in common. They share the same shape and colour, both of which we perceive quickly and automatically at the so-called pre-attentive stage. This makes it impossible for us to find the right object quickly during this fast processing stage, as we cannot distinguish between them fast enough. So we need the slower one, attentive level to find our target object - i.e., we first have to consciously scan each individual element and check whether it is our "target object" - and that takes time.  

This can pose a risk in situations where rapid action and reaction are required. Think of healthcare, the transport and automotive sectors, aeroplanes, space shuttles, or industry in general. But even for products not used in safety-critical environments, we can utilise the findings from cognitive psychology to make people's lives a little easier.

Literature

• Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5

The Halo Effect, Simply Explained

The halo effect is a well-documented cognitive bias from psychology. It describes the phenomenon whereby a single positive characteristic influences our entire perception of a person, brand, or product.

When we perceive a positive quality – for example, a particularly aesthetic design – we automatically transfer this evaluation to other characteristics.

We then assume the following, for example

• A beautiful interface appears more competent
• A modern website appears more trustworthy
• A well-designed app appears more professional.

The first impression thus creates a kind of "halo" (aura of light)that outshines other characteristics.

This effect plays an important role particularly with digital products, where users decide within seconds whether to trust a website or app.

In UX psychology, the halo effect thus describes how strongly visual design influences our perception of trust, quality, and competence.

Everyday Examples of the Halo Effect

Quick judgements and biased decisions

The halo effect influences many of our everyday decisions – often without us even noticing.

Typical examples include:

Attractive people appear more competent: Studies show that people frequently and automatically rate attractive individuals as more intelligent or successful.

The brand image influences product evaluations: When we perceive a brand positively, we tend to rate its products higher – even when they objectively differ little from competing products.

First impressions shape long-term perceptions: The first impression of a person, a company, or a product can influence our perception over the long term.

These quick judgments help our brain to efficiently evaluate complex situations – but in turn also lead to systematic perceptual biases..

Examples of the Halo Effect in UX Design

The halo effect also plays an important role in the perception of digital products such as apps or websites. Since users often view digital interfaces for only a few seconds, impressions form particularly quickly.

Aesthetic design appears more trustworthy

A visually appealing website is often automatically perceived as more credible, more competent, and more secure – even before any content has been read.

This phenomenon is often described in UX research as the "aesthetic usability effect."

Good design influences perceived quality

When a product has a modern and high-quality interface, users often assume that its features, service, and security are equally high-quality and reliable.

Trust is often built through first impressions

A clearly structured layout, consistent design, and high-quality visual elements can help users trust a platform more quickly. Even small details in both design and interaction can influence whether a system comes across as competent, trustworthy, or high-quality. Conversely, minor design flaws, clunky interactions, or an outdated visual style can raise doubts about competence or security.

The halo effect thus demonstrates that design decisions go far beyond aesthetics – they significantly influence how users perceive digital products and, consequently, how they evaluate the brand or company behind them, as users tend to quickly transfer individual impressions to their overall assessment of a product or an entire brand.

The Halo Effect in Digital Products

The halo effect plays an important role not only in apps and websites, but naturally also applies to digital assistants, chatbots, and connected toys.

The halo effect is not limited to positive impressions. Negative characteristics can equally transfer to the overall perception. When users find a particular aspect unprofessional or irritating, this can quickly translate into a generally skeptical attitude toward the product as a whole.

Real-world example: Automated translations as a trust trap

A common example from digital practice is automatically translated content – such as in product descriptions, support texts, or user reviews.

Automatic translations often feel quite detached and grammatically awkward – and yes, readers do notice this. As a result, we unconsciously attribute a certain indifference toward customers on the company's part, which loses points in terms of credibility. We then make these automatic leaps of logic and draw a conclusion about the quality of the brand behind this website or service. For example, an obviously automated translation can be associated with "unkindness" or similar. Conclusions are then drawn, such as:

"This company doesn't care about its copy" and

"they probably don't care about their users either" – and with that:

"They don't care about me."

All of these automatic attributions can even lead to doubts about whether the company can be trusted at all. One might start to wonder: if they can't manage to properly translate their product pages, what else are they falling short on? Can I trust them with my credit card details, or will that be handled just as carelessly as their copy?

This means that a user or customer experience can influence their subjective interpretation of other elements and also their attitudes towards the company as a whole.

Why the halo effect matters for UX design and brand trust

This can be particularly critical in contexts where trustworthiness is paramount. When banks, airlines, or medical products make such "mistakes" – services to which we entrust our most sensitive data or even our lives – this can severely and lastingly damage a brand's credibility and the trust placed in it. But even in e-commerce, trust and customers can be lost through such issues. Accuracy and attention to detail are therefore essential here, as they directly feed into perceived trustworthiness.

In conclusion, it is important to take the halo effect into account during product development in order to avoid negative impressions and thus reduce the risk of losing the trust of users or customers.

*This is a Keepon/BeatBot – a toy for autistic children – and it is definitely not up to anything sinister. 🙂 🙂

Literature

• Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25-29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663

• The Web Credibility Project: Guidelines, Stanford University (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2022, on https://credibility.stanford.edu/guidelines/index.html

Photo: Torsten Dederichs on Unsplash