Just because most users don't use a thing doesn't mean it's not a useful thing to have. Even if almost never called the emergency services doesn't mean I don't want or need the ability to do so. Further, being able to adjust the cursor speed is great for improving accessibility.

> If you have sensible defaults, you can make users do actions that you want them to do

What about what the users want to do? What entitles you to decide what is good for other people? That's just creepy as fuck.

It depends. "I want the user to find the useful capabilities of my software" isn't creepy at all. That's just good design. "I want the user to do things that are against their interests but make more money for me" is the core characteristic of a dark pattern.

I never said to remove settings entirely, merely to choose sensible defaults.

> What about what the users want to do? What entitles you to decide what is good for other people? That's just creepy as fuck.

This is a strange comment. It's literally the job of the designer to make sure users can do what they need to do in the application, I'm not sure how that's "creepy as fuck." But also, there's a notion of libertarian paternalism [0], ie give people choices but also have defaults that are defaulted to the better, healthier, more beneficial option so to speak, because the designer would know that most people may not change their settings. You wouldn't want your pointer speed to be excessively fast, that would just be annoying, so set the default at a reasonable level and let people change it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_(book)#Libertarian_pater...

> Sunstein and Thaler state that "the libertarian aspect of our strategies lies in the straightforward insistence that, in general, people should be free to do what they like-and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so".[18] The paternalistic portion of the term "lies in the claim that it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people's behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better".

> It's literally the job of the designer to make sure users can do what they need to do in the application,

See, this is two entirely different things.

The notion of attempting to manipulate the behavior of people without their knowledge or consent is creepy no matter how you twist or turn it.

I completely disagree. What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what I think the user wants. I present them with information and choices, they tell me what to do. There is never a step where I hold any opinion over what the user should do. Only steps where I help them understand the consequences of their available actions.

What do you mean "never"? If you've put one button on top of the other, you've just created a hierachy. You are telling the user that button is more important than the lower button.

Have you ever hidden elements until it can be revealed by click on "more" button? That's you telling the user it isn't as important as unhidden elements.

Have you made defaults? That's you nudging the user into what _you_ think is the sensible choice.

In my opinion, design is fundamentally about having an opinion. A refined opinion that matches a lot of users is what is commonly deemed to be "good design", but obviously not a design never match all users.

> What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what I think the user wants.

What you think the user want is still what you want. But I think I get what you mean here, you don't like the anti-patterns and nudges that drive users to do what is "worse" for them. I agree with you there but I would argue that they are all still "design". Design is about manipulating people and whether you do it for good or bad is a moral choice.

> Have you ever hidden elements until it can be revealed by click on "more" button? That's you telling the user it isn't as important as unhidden elements.

> Have you made defaults? That's you nudging the user into what _you_ think is the sensible choice.

> In my opinion, design is fundamentally about having an opinion. A refined opinion that matches a lot of users is what is commonly deemed to be "good design", but obviously not a design never match all users.

I think we're on the same page here or close to it. I can have lots of strong opinions about how best to inform the user about their options and what will happen if they choose them. I can have strong opinions about which options are best for accomplishing certain goals. But that's different from me trying to get the user to do something specific or wanting them to. Or even having an opinion about what they "should" do, that depends on their goals and circumstances.

> Design is about manipulating people and whether you do it for good or bad is a moral choice.

I still disagree about this. I would agree if you're creating art, an experience that is meant to be fictional. But if you're providing a tool or resource, then I think design is about informing people about their choices and empowering them to make them. So it should strive to be as far from opinionated or manipulative about those choices as possible.

I think we are pretty much are on the same page here too. I agree that design _ought_ to be about informing people. It looks like our definition of 'design' and 'manipulation' vary slightly, which lead to our disagreement.

- Your definition of design is a narrower than mine. (yours include the normative element whereas mine doesnt)

- I've used the word 'manipulation' in a neutral way but it was a negative one for you. (e.g. The engineer manipulated the control panel vs she manipulated him into giving him all this money)

In any case, I'll think more about your definition of design. If more designers used your definition, I think the world would be a better place!

It’s not necessarily the case that designers guide users down paths that solely benefit the designer, and I think that approach tends to be seen by most as “bad design”. In fact, it might even be bad design by definition.

You are making a choice, on their behalf, that influences how they experience something without their knowledge or explicit consent. Just because you might intend them only the best, doesn't change that it is a form of unseen manipulation.

It could be because they want to try your app. It implies nothing about long-term goals.

>Highlighting "later" is a user-positive nudge

The label "later" is itself a dark pattern. It's forcing a user who only wants to try the app to lie, which exploits the principle of consistency (as documented in Cialdini's "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion") to manipulate them into continuing to use the app.

How does "use" imply long term? Is trying an app not at attempt to make use of it?

> It's forcing a user who only wants to try the app to lie

I didn't even notice that as I wrote it, but you're absolutely right. "skip", "continue", or even "not now" would be more neutral. This stuff really gets in your head without you realizing it when its so pervasive.

I used to love to fiddle with settings. I gave up because the constant churn of modern software made it too tedious to maintain non-default settings in most applications.

What use is spending time to make a more comfortable environment when the software will randomly auto-update in two weeks and might undo all my settings, or worse, change its behavior in such a way that my custom settings just make things worse.

It should be easier than ever to maintain settings; the tooling is so much better now.

But maybe things are a bit different nowadays. Web-based software might not have this problem so much, and I think mainstream mobile OSes do a good job of importing your setup when you get a new phone.

Non-technical users may not care about settings to begin with, partly because defaults work well enough. But there will be a point where they'll have to change them, so giving them the option is important.

>> First of all, remind yourself that users love settings.

Maybe this is a better way to explain it: Some users like settings, some users have to change settings to use your product. But most users will not change them if you pick good defaults... for most users.

Funny how often this gets repeated. Usually (as here) with a conspicuous lack of supporting data.

> They do not change their mouse speed, their background image, their default browser. That's why a meme exists of people thinking the internet is the blue E icon on their desktop.

Could just as well be -- and, I think, is -- the other way around: It's not that they're ignorant because they don't change their settings, but that they don't change their settings because they're ignorant. Maybe most (or even all) of them would want to change their mouse speed, background image, and default browser, if only they knew there are settings to do it. Removing the settings wouldn't exactly help with that -- on the contrary, the solution would be to make them more obvious.

I'd call myself a power user and to an extent I am (give me a deb or a PPA over snap and the app store any day) but tinkering is just a pain in the ass now.

a) on my work machine and therefore not going to store my music library on it

b) on my work machine and therefore spending most of my time between a terminal, my text editor, Slack, and a web browser

Not sure how my lack of motivation to tinker would be a problem for anyone else, really.

Sometimes, just sometimes, users want customizability.

I wish I could align my springboard icons to the bottom. And choose a shiny metal shelf again instead of that acrylic bullshit, but that is just my bad taste.

Some settings are even more important than others - like changing default browser in the operating system - that even if no one ever changes them they should be there basically by law.