Ethical Analysis Applied to User Experience

Ethical Analysis Applied to User Experience 2
Introduction 3
Setting the Stage: User Experience 3
Case Studies 7
Case 1 | How “Smart” Should the Car be?: Technology & Consequence 7
Case 2 | Return of the Pop-Ups: Advertising & Principles 14
Case 3 | Ethics of UX Research: Facebook & Rights 19
Case 4 | Shared & (almost) Stolen: Instagram & Justice 23
Case 5 | Addictive UX: MMORPG & Virtues 28
Summary 33
References 34
MGMT705 | Assignment 1
Joe Jancsics

Joseph Jancsics MGMT705 | Assignment 1 | 9.17.2014 2
Ethical Analysis Applied to User Experience
The purpose of this essay is to evaluate ethical issues within the user experience (UX)
profession. The ethical code of conduct provided by the User Experience Professionals Association
(UXPA) will be referenced to set the basis for case analysis, along with an overview of what UX
represents as a discipline. Five unique ethical issues (cases) related to the UX field will be
summarized and analyzed, within the context of the following five ethical foundations: Consequences,
principles, rights, justice, and virtues. Each of the five unique case discussions will be restricted to one
of the aforementioned ethical foundations; thereby none of the unique cases will be evaluated on
more than a single ethical foundation. Cases are aligned with the most suitable ethical foundation for
the specific issues in question. Psychological dimensions and their potential impact on the decision-
making process will be applied, along with a recommended solution to the ethical issue at hand for
the respective case.

Introduction
Setting the Stage: User Experience
The User Experience Professionals Association (UXPA) states, "User experience professionals
may do a broad range of work from interviews and observations to creating wireframes for a product
or service. Some have a design background, and some have a library science degree." ("UXPA," n.d.,
About UXPA Section.) Further exploration of their website leads to the UXPA Code of Professional
Conduct (n.d.), which states the following ethical principles:
 Act in the best interest of everyone
 Be honest with everyone
 Do no harm and if possible provide benefits
 Act with integrity
 Avoid conflicts of interest
 Respect privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity
 Provide all resultant data (para. 8, UXPA Code of Professional Conduct)
The UXPA goes into further detail of the abovementioned principles by providing examples of each.
User experience (UX) designers are involved in a wide range of responsibilities related to the design
process for product and services. A UX designer working alone is often expected to act as a
researcher, usability tester, and designer. Recent demand-driven trends have further stretched the UX
role. This sometimes includes participation in coding and development, and also collaborating with
marketing teams to share knowledge about user (consumer) research insights for positioning
products and services.

The UX designer approaches problems from various angles and a scenario-driven focus, with
the ultimate objective being to craft the best experience possible for the user. Essentially, one that
balances all aspects between the technologies helping a user accomplish a goal in a way they find
enjoyable. This often includes, but is not limited to, the immediate user interface (UI) of a
technology, and any/all implications that go beyond the visible controls. A basic example of potential
complexity would be the design for a privacy setting control on a social media platform. A user may
change a setting, but the resulting change goes beyond the immediate UI as it dictates what all other
users on the social platform will have access to; some of which may not be in alignment with the
intended goal of the user. A responsible UX designer, or team of practitioners, will work to create an
experience that communicates the appropriate feedback to the user upon altering a critical setting,
protecting them from harm without coming off as unpleasant or annoying.
The UX designer role exists within a wide range of industries such as banking, consumer
electronics, healthcare, automobiles, transportation systems, and the list goes on. Chances are most
products, services, and software you engage with have been shaped in some way by a user experience
designer, especially within the last decade. The term 'User Experience Designer' was coined
sometime around 1995 by Don Norman when he worked for Apple (Norman, Miller, &
Henderson, 1995). Since then the term has been so frequently misused that the true meaning has
nearly been lost, and to resolve confusion it helps to mention a few of the things that it is not: Web
design, user-centered design, graphic design, usability testing, customer satisfaction, information
architecture, etc (UX Design Defined, 2010). Part of the confusion around the term is that "user
experience design" is a broad discipline. Any attempt to pin it down to just aesthetics, research, or

prototyping would be ignoring the bigger picture and true definition. A summary definition
provided by Nielsen and Norman (n.d.) states, "'User experience' encompasses all aspects of the end-
user's interaction with the company, its services, and its products" (summary section, para. 1).
Most large organizations will create well-rounded UX teams with specialized members to
cover research, testing, prototype development, and the visual look and feel. Specializations aside, it's
expected for an individual UX designer to have basic competency in most, if not all, of these areas.
UX research methods are adapted from anthropology and sociology (Aretz, 2013). UX testing
methods rely on elements of cognitive psychology for determining the appropriate architecture and
load of information presented in a service, product, or system. Iterative rapid prototyping methods
are the UX designer’s tools to determine the best experience to allow users to complete tasks and
accomplish their respective goals.
UX is not a traditional line of work, but rather a relatively new field that is experiencing
tremendous growth in the climate of technology innovation. Employing organizations and designers
of all types frequently mislabel their own UX opportunities and experience, respectively. UI design,
research, testing - these things are components within the UX design discipline and process, but they
are not to be considered anything more than tasks toward a greater calling. One can easily argue
that a jewelry designer is a UX practitioner if their process and output incorporate the right
elements; and this idea will become more apparent with the emergence of wearable technology
devices. The fact that uxdesign.com had to publish a list of what it is not to segue into a 1,300 word
definition explaining what it is, with illustrations, underscores the continued existence of confusion
and challenges in providing a comprehensive overview (UX Design Defined, 2010). A field with

more history behind it, for example accounting or law, would probably require less introduction and
guided explanation to the reader. However, in an effort to adequately set the stage it is important to
understand the scope of the discipline, as it defines the context for the case selections and ethical
analysis hereinafter. For the purposes of this paper the ethical issues will be analyzed from a UX
team and/or practitioner perspective, focusing on research and design decisions and the implications
on primary and secondary stakeholders.

Case Studies
Case 1 | How “Smart” Should the Car be?: Technology & Consequence
Everyone knows they shouldn't text and drive but they do it anyways, often times the stated
intent of a user and their behavior don't match up. Safety officials have called for solutions to
prevent distracted driving for some time now. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) has published comprehensive voluntary guidelines for automakers to minimize in-vehicle
distractions. Scott Tibbitts, a former engineer who worked on technologies for NASA, was inspired
by a tragic event, "...he discovered that the executive with whom he was supposed to meet had been
killed that very morning in a car crash caused by a teenager, who, Mr. Tibbitts was told, was
texting."(Richtel, 2014, para. 5). Tibbitts went to work on a solution and launched a company
called Katasi. He developed a system that will block incoming and outgoing texts, along with
preventing phone calls (Richtel, 2014). American Family insurance invested in the technology, and
Sprint allowed Katasi to use their network for testing and development.
When cellphone carriers relied heavily on minutes-based revenues their target market was
drivers, and the more time people spent in the cars the more minutes they would use. In recent years
the model has shifted to smartphones with unlimited data plans, and carriers have been promoting
anti-texting campaigns. Various technological issues began to surface for Katasi when evaluating the
use-cases further, like how would the technology know the difference between a driver and
passenger? Adding more hesitation for Sprint to participate was the possibility that the technology
may simply fail or have a random error, and with that there could be consequences. If you make a

promise to keep a driver safe by blocking the distractions, and a single text message slips through the
system there could be major liability issues.
Automakers are important stakeholders in the equation as they are increasingly adding
'infotainment' systems that work to leverage features from smartphones. The most commonly
discussed problem is texting, but automakers are putting these features into the dashboard. Prior to
NHTSA publishing guidelines it seemed like automakers were chomping at the bit to arrive first
with a tablet-like experience in the dash, with social media apps included, and none of that is truly
the best approach from a UX practitioner perspective. "While these technologies deliver
unquestionable value and pleasure to the driver and passengers, they indisputably divide the
operator’s attention, distracting him or her from the stated purpose of driving, leading to life-
threatening situations (and that’s not even including texting while driving)" (Gribbons, 2013, The
Dangers of Distraction section). Anti-texting laws have been difficult to enforce because dialing the
phone or using a device for music is not considered an offense, and seeing a phone in hand is rarely
enough to determine the actual use. If these features are in the dashboard they don't necessarily
become less distracting, much of that outcome depends on responsible UX design.
Katasi serves as an example for an immediate solution to a potentially bigger problem, but
the proposed solution is perceived as a risk to carriers and a threat to technology advancement. Most
of the smartcar and infotainment systems heavily leverage smartphone connectivity features, taking
away the phone would essentially remove much more than just the phone. This is a great example of
where the result of one decision within a technology system can have results that affect the entire

landscape for advancement and innovation. If the phone is blocked what features can the system no
longer perform? Could blocking the phone create significant problems in certain situations?
Ethical issue or decision:
Should data connections and non-driving features be blocked while driving?
Stakeholders:
Primary: Drivers, cell phone companies, Tibbitts (Katasi), automakers, OEM suppliers
Secondary: Family members, taxpayers, shareholders
Ethical Foundation - Consequences (Utilitarian):
Question: Should data connections and non-driving features be blocked while driving?
Stakeholder
Do allow -
Harms
Do Allow -
Benefits
Do Not Allow -
Harms
Do Not Allow -
Benefits
Drivers – Primary 10 10 15 7
Cellphone Carriers – Primary 4 10 20 5
Katasi (Tibbitts) - Primary 2 0 0 3
Automakers - Primary 6 10 8 2
OEM suppliers - Primary 3 8 12 2
Family members - Secondary 3 8 12 4
Taxpayers - Secondary 5 0 0 3
Shareholders - Secondary 2 5 8 2
35 51 75 28
Referencing the table above allows us to measure consequences and results as they impact
stakeholders. Drivers are the most obvious primary stakeholders, and from a UX perspective they are
the user, and therefore they have the most weight in the table. The harm and benefit of allowing
data connections and non-driving features are measured as being equal because to some degree this
depends on individual behavior and random chance. Teens are the most common to have accidents
while texting, but they have also been raised in a world with smartphones and have not been driving

very long. When age and experience are factored in the analysis it seems to balance the harms and
benefits results, or at least it establishes more context associated with allowing these technologies in
the vehicle. Not allowing data or other technologies could have harms related to the lack of ability to
call for help when in distress. Responsible drivers have a phone in their possession with the
expectation they can use it for an emergency. If a safety feature blocks the ability to call for help it
has potential to cause harm. For the cellphone carriers they seem to face harm if the phones are
blocked while driving because they will likely disappoint users. It is not hard to imagine sales a
carrier would lose if they decided to block data while driving while other carriers continue to allow
it. Responsible adults are most likely to choose the phone that works all the time.
Katasi (Tibbitts) was assigned less weight because the company only represents a small
amount of people, mainly Tibbitts and a circle of partners, but he and his company are still
considered primary stakeholders. If technology is not blocked while driving it essentially puts him
out of business, or perhaps back to the drawing board. If a carrier will partner with him it will likely
benefit him more than the level of harm if his idea is rejected, but Katasi is assigned less weight
because it’s the smallest stakeholder. It should also be mentioned that the efforts they are making
help to raise awareness of the issues, and this is further promotes exploration towards solutions.
Automakers and OEM suppliers would both be harmed if data connections were blocked
because it would restrict their ability to explore new experiences for users. The automakers are
impacted less because they can still offer vehicles. The OEM suppliers depend heavily on the
existence and refinement of technology within the vehicle because it is their primary business, and
therefore the harm consequences are highest if technology is blocked.

For secondary stakeholders the families of drivers see significant harms if blocking of
technology is allowed. Although there are benefits in the table for them, these are representative of
the less experienced drivers, or teens, where parents may desire to have the restriction in place. On
the other hand, if a teenager is being chased by someone in a road rage incident the potential harm
associated with not being able to contact help adds points to the overall largest harm of blocking
technologies. Taxpayers as secondary stakeholders pay for emergency response and NHTSA
guidelines, and if technology were blocked it would allow these funds to be used elsewhere. The final
secondary stakeholders are the shareholders of the companies involved (carriers, automakers, and
OEM suppliers). Potential innovation and growth would be slowed if restrictions were put in place,
but some level of risks exists if no action is taken and this is reflected accordingly in the table.
Psychological Dimensions:
Moral awareness is evident with magnitude of consequence and the potential to inflict serious
harm. The leading cause of death among teenagers is texting while driving, and studies show texting
drivers are 23 times more likely to have an accident ("Auto Safety," n.d.). Social consciousness is also
apparent in increased campaigns against distracted driving and NHTSA guidelines have recently
caused many automotive-related stakeholders to take a more cautious approach rather than jamming
in new technologies. Euphemistic language played a role in the initial rush to implement technologies
quickly into automobiles. Terms like "Smart Car" and "Infotainment" minimized the ethical
concerns around things like driver distraction and overall safety.
Automakers seem to be slowing down their rush after being called out on some major
oversights in terms of UX. A rather harsh review of the Cadillac CUE touchscreen system stated,

"CUE would work much better if Cadillac was to bring back some key physical push buttons and
knobs for the climate and audio controls." (Gruener, 2013, IX Design and Distraction section). Don
Norman, who coined the term 'UX designer', was quoted on his impressions of the BMW's iDrive
system "Look at BMW with iDrive. It was crazy, just crazy. Disaster. You could customize
everything. You could customize up to something like 700 variables." (Lombardi, 2007, para. 2).
The most obvious mistakes with the early infotainment systems seemed to involve a design approach
that lost sight of the environmental elements, primary user goals, and cognitive processing while
driving. Simply because you can present technologies to a user doesn't always mean you should. UX
and marketing can sometimes have conflicting interests, and usability suffers when the focus shifts
away from core user goals and towards adding more features.
For now the NHTSA guidelines are voluntary, but most automakers are aware that ignoring
them could be dangerous. Long-term it can be expected that if the guidelines eventually become
mandatory it could reflect poorly on those who strayed from the recommended path. This is a sign
of level two conventional cognitive moral development; where the actions are based on conformity,
mutual expectations, social accord, and system maintenance (Trevino & Nelson, 2014, p. 85).
Cognitive barriers such as confirmation trap can be recognized by the initial rush by
automakers to implement new technologies first. Along with this was the illusion of optimism and
illusion of control, displayed several years ago when Cadillac was offering classroom-style sessions on
how to use their CUE system. A well-designed user experience would ideally not require after-sales
classroom sessions to help a user operate the system.

Moral disengagement may be evident on automakers and cell providers because they have not
established a clear plan of action. While the automakers have NHTSA guidelines to follow, if they
choose, the cell carriers seem to promote awareness campaigns without any real design solutions.
Through the campaigns they may be thinking it diffuses responsibility and perhaps attributes blame
onto users who are continuing to text while driving.
Proposed Solution:
The UXPA ethical principles have significant amounts of language to reinforce a utilitarian
approach (UXPA Code of Professional Conduct, n.d.). When analyzing the issues within the
framework of the ethical principles of consequence it seems clear that blocking technologies entirely
has a high level of harm, but allowing restriction also offers a moderate level of benefit. This
indicates that the solution should not be focused on preventing a user from doing things entirely,
but rather to take a more holistic approach towards designing responsible solutions. With more
hands-free features on the horizon, improved control systems, and speech recognition it can be
clearly seen that the solution lies in designing a better solution. Ideally, a system with enough
flexibility to enable parents to lock out texting, but perhaps allow calling certain numbers for
emergencies while driving would be best. As a UX practitioner it would not make sense to propose a
design within this paper, but it is easy to see reasons why increased awareness of the issues will lead
to better solutions in the future. Moving forward, the UX efforts should be focused on handling the
primary goal of driving safely, while eliminating any distractions associated with media or
communications systems if/when needed by the user to accomplish a secondary goal.

Case 2 | Return of the Pop-Ups: Advertising & Principles
“The Web is full of all kinds of annoying and distracting advertising tricks, but the
experience of having the close button fail to close something delivers a unique brand of torture.”
(Leonard, 2013, para. 3). This case focuses on the recent revival of pop-up advertisements and how
they mislead users into unintended actions. Sometimes buttons are created that appear to serve the
goal to dismiss an advertisement, but when pressed they do not work. These are not glitches or
accidents, they are intentionally designed to mislead users, to trick them into viewing pages not
aligned with their goals.
In addition to the common pop-up ads, some designers are manipulating users by the
selection of design pattern they implement. Mitchell (2014) wrote about the psychology of waiting
and load times, illustrating how users can be manipulated into blaming a system or an application
based merely on the style of animation presented:
“It was from this perspective that I noted that custom loading animations can be valuable to
distract and entertain your users while content is retrieved. But I also noted a word of
warning. This warning pertained to a Facebook test indicating that when their users were
presented with a custom loading animation in the Facebook iOS app (left) they blamed the
app for the delay. But when users were shown the iOS system spinner (right), they were
more likely to blame the system itself.” (para. 4)
In a response posting on his own blog, UX designer Chris Kiess (2014) stated:
“We don’t often think too much about ethics as UX professionals. But, there are a variety of
reasons we should and areas of our profession where ethics can become pertinent. In the case

of the Facebook example above – assuming it is true – it seems this is only unethical once
you discover how to mislead the user and intentionally devise a means to do so.” (para. 4)
UX designers are forced to balance the pressures of business goals with the ethical principle guideline
“Do no harm and if possible provide benefits” (UXPA Code of Professional Conduct, n.d., Ethical
Principles section). Further guidance is provided by UXPA in the example, “UX practitioners shall
not expose participants to any unreasonable physical, mental, or emotional stress.” (UXPA Code of
Professional Conduct, n.d., Examples of the Practice of the Principles section).
Should UX designers intentionally mislead users?
Stakeholders:
Primary: Users, test participants, UX practitioner, organizations
Secondary: Marketing departments
Ethical Foundation - Principles (Deontological):
The primary components for a principles analysis are to do no harm, do unto others as you
would have them do unto you, and Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act as if the maxim of thy action
were to become by thy will a universal law of nature.” (Trevino & Nelson, 2014, p. 43, para. 5).
These deontological theories align with the third UXPA Ethical Principle “Do no harm and if
possible provide benefits” (“UXPA Code of Professional Conduct”, n.d., para. 8, Ethical Principles
section, 3rd
list item). When thinking of the user, and the UX designer’s responsibility to create the
most suitable experience possible for them, it is clearly inappropriate to intentionally mislead users.

Pop-up ads, false buttons, these seem harmless on a typical media website designed for information
consumption, but what about if everyone designed like this? What if everything was like this?
Systems that are designed to help users accomplish goals exist in critical settings, such as air-traffic
control centers and emergency rooms, would false buttons or pop-up windows misleading the user
ever be acceptable in those applications? A responsible UX practitioner would consider a wide
spectrum of users and their potential emotions. A designer does not know what mental state their
user will be in when they interact with a system, and even if it is a website focused on entertainment
the user might be one bad interaction away from complete frustration. The major moral principles
should guide a UX designer to produce an experience that will delight users, not frustrate or mislead
them.
Depending on the goal of the user, or the level of potential harm, it is possible that a low
magnitude of consequence is associated with experiences where not much immediate or obvious
potential harm is identified. The UX designer responsible for making a false button or a misleading
pop-up most likely justifies their decision based on a level 1 pre-conventional cognitive moral
development, driven by obedience and concerned with personal reward (Trevino & Nelson, 2014). If
the marketing team asks for it and the UX practitioner is operating at level 1 or 2 on the cognitive
moral development spectrum they are likely to set aside principles and follow orders. Level 2 focuses on
approval by others in a close group and fulfillment of agreed-upon duties (Trevino & Nelson, 2014).
This means that if the UX team has been established for some time and there is cultural precedence
to follow orders, or if implementing pop-up features is something agreed upon in the past by the

team, then level 1 pre-conventional and level 2 conventional psychological factors will influence
decision making behavior.
Moral disengagement and the distortion of consequence may contribute to a reduced feeling of
personal responsibility. Distortion of consequence and illusion of optimism may lead to further
reinforcement of the decision to mislead users. If an organization is measuring success by the number
of clicks rather than how a user is feeling about the experience they are missing entire purpose of
ethical design. Overconfidence and confirmation trap may influence choices of which facts to gather,
thus confirming preconceived preferred choices (Trevino & Nelson, 2014).
Proposed Solution:
Acting in the interest of the UXPA Ethical Guidelines it would be recommended for the UX
designer to voice concerns over the practice of implementing pop-up ads, false buttons, or any other
misleading experiences. While the secondary stakeholder in a marketing department might not agree
immediately, it is the UX designer’s responsibility to inform them that these types of experiences
frustrate users, hurt the brand, and have much more downside risk than upside potential. The
UXPA Examples of Practice states:
“UX practitioners shall avoid all known conflicts of interest with their employers or clients
and shall promptly inform their employers or clients of any business association, interests, or
circumstances that could influence their judgments or the quality of their services.” (“UXPA
Code of Professional Conduct”, n.d., Examples of Practice section, Avoid conflicts of
interest, item 5.1).

This above-referenced example specifically applies to reinforce the recommendation that the ethical
UX practitioner should voice their concerns. Efforts should be made to present better solutions to
the user in an effort to preserve the integrity of the brand and service.

Case 3 | Ethics of UX Research: Facebook & Rights
Facebook is currently one of the most influential and innovative players in technology and
social media. Part of this success stems from their focus on understanding users, and making very
deliberate and calculated design decisions. When a user joins a social media service they agree to
terms, and typically almost no one reads these. The Facebook terms of service (TOS) has an item
regarding research that states they may use information “for internal operations, including
troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.” (“Facebook,” n.d., How
we use the Information we Receive section, 6th
list item).
Facebook conducted a research study on nearly 700,000 users, permission for this was
granted under the TOS agreement that all users are bound to equally. The study was focused on
“emotional contagion through social networks” and it involved manipulating the information
presented to users within their newsfeeds (Waldman, 2014). The testing focused on how adjusting
the flow of positive and negative updates would affect a user. “Some people were fed primarily
neutral to happy information from their friends; others, primarily neutral to sad. Then everyone’s
subsequent posts were evaluated for affective meanings.” (Waldman, 2014, para. 3). Facebook was
essentially filtering out things from a user’s network, that they otherwise would have seen in an un-
tampered experience, with the intent to shift their emotional state.
Should Facebook deliberately try to influence the mood of users in their research efforts?
Stakeholders:
Primary: Users, Facebook

Secondary: Other users, family, coworkers
Ethical Foundation - Rights (Deontological):
Applying the ethical principles of rights involves the aspects an individual deserves by being
human. The right to the pursuit of happiness seems as though it is being infringed upon by
Facebook. They are providing a service where research efforts are intentionally and artificially
crafting a negative social experience for the user. Furthering this violation of rights is the basic right
not to be harmed or interfered with by others. Facebook has no idea what a user is dealing with in
their un-shared (offline) lives, whether it be illness or depression, and to manipulate the experience
with the intent to deflate mood could violate the rights to health and safety.
On the moral awareness element of psychological factors it is reasonable to assume the
magnitude of consequence could be one of serious potential harm. Users are humans, each with
unique situations in life and personalities, and when Facebook tries to manipulate their mood from a
distance they have very little control over the potential harm caused to the user to secondary
stakeholders. Euphemistic language within the TOS agreement presents their research activities in a
way that makes it sound as if only good things can happen; little does a user know that they might
be intentionally dragging their mood down with the research efforts.
It is likely the researchers at Facebook have some level of moral disengagement when they
deploy these algorithms to nearly 700,000 users. With numbers that large, and methods violating
basic rights, it is hard to imagine that they think of users as anything more than just a number or a

line of code. Moral justification is also likely a psychological factor in their decision, as stated by
Trevino and Nelson (2014) “unethical behavior is thought to be okay because it contributes to some
socially valued outcome.” (p. 85, para. 3). The UX team and researchers at Facebook probably view
themselves as pioneers by conducting this seemingly innovative research, but in the context of rights
and the amount of users involved the ethics of it are flawed.
Proposed Solution:
For guidance on this issue a UX practitioner can reference the UXPA Examples of Practice
section 'Do no Harm', all three examples are applicable and stated as follows:
“3.1. UX practitioners shall not expose participants to any unreasonable physical, mental or
emotional stress.
3.2. UX practitioners shall take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients or employers,
study participants, and others with whom they work, and to minimize harm where it is
foreseeable and avoidable.
3.3. UX practitioners shall review for special needs when working with the elderly, the
disabled, and children. Precautions taken to avoid risks associated with such groups shall be
clearly identified and reviewed by the client or employer.” (“UXPA Code of Professional
Conduct”, n.d., Examples of Practice section, Do no Harm and if Possible Provide Benefits,
items 3.1-3.3).
In the case research there was no evidence that Facebook excluded groups that may be disabled, and
it doesn’t seem like they knew what would be the result of the research. In other words, if there was a
wave of suicides because they implemented the negative mood filter on users with severe depression,
was there any way they would have been prepared for that? The example may seem a bit extreme,

but emotional responses from users within a system that delivers a highly personalized experience can
be serious. The proposed solution is that Facebook should recognize that the world is already full of
good days and bad, happy status updates and sad occur naturally, and therefore there is little reason
for them to meddle with the organic ecosystem of emotions that already exists within their social
network platform. Users have enough going on, and Facebook has plenty of naturally-occurring
drama to study; a responsible UX designer/researcher respects the rights of users and their
environment enough to know tampering only makes the research impure. A solution to continue
this type of research would be to assemble a specific treatment group that is aware of their
participation in a study, and then use the regular user base as the control group for results
comparison.

Case 4 | Shared & (almost) Stolen: Instagram & Justice
Instagram is a social photo-sharing application for mobile platforms that delivers an easy and
fun way to share photos free of charge. Users can follow each other, leave comments, ‘like’ photos,
which makes it sound almost like a photo-based version of Facebook. Not surprisingly, the team at
Facebook recognized the strategic alignment and in 2012 they acquired Instagram. Users on
Instagram are frequently treated to revised interface designs through software updates, and the
service offers simple tools to apply filters to make photos look more unique. Facebook and Instagram
present separate experiences to the user and each service has unique terms of service (TOS)
agreements.
A change to the TOS was announced in late 2012, and to say the least the community of
users did not react positively:
“The new Terms of Service suggested Instagram would be allowed to use pictures in
advertisements without notifying or compensating users, and to disclose user data to
Facebook and to advertisers. Instagram also proposed that the parents of minors implicitly
consent to the use of their childrens' images for advertising purposes.” (Mintz, 2013, para. 3)
Additional language in the agreement forced users to waive their rights to file a class action lawsuit
(Mintz, 2013).
Online campaigns started to organize protests around the new TOS, and a large number of
users deleted their Instagram accounts. In response, Instagram revised the agreement and removed
the most controversial parts about displaying users’ photos without providing respective
compensation. However, there were still some questionable terms in the revision. They presented

language to the user that anyone under 18 years old would be implying through acceptance of terms
that their parent or guardian has reviewed and agreed to them, which seems like a strange
expectation for an organization to have (Mintz, 2013). Users were able to bring legal action against
Instagram, and eventually they reversed all the changes and rolled back the TOS to the version prior
to all the controversy.
Should Instagram be able to alter terms of service and leverage content from users for their
own commercial benefit?
Stakeholders:
Primary: Instagram users, Instagram/Facebook
Secondary: Other users, people being photographed
Ethical Foundation - Justice (Deontological):
The ethical foundation of justice focuses on concepts of fairness. The users of Instagram felt
threatened by the proposed change because they were all being affected by a sweeping immediate
change of the rules within the experience. While there may have been a veil of ignorance when
applying the new terms of service to all users, instead of only a select few, it is reasonable to assume
they were not planning to use poorly shot photos for their commercial purposes. The actual terms
and rules were applied to everyone; but some users on Instagram are professional photographers, and
the high quality of their work would make them a more likely target for undesired use by Instagram.
In this sense the distributive justice would be tilted unfairly against those with the most impressive

portfolios, for their work would probably be used by Instagram for commercial purposes without
remuneration to the user. Essentially, the most talented users with the best photos would be the
most likely to have the worst outcome under the new terms.
The decision to present terms of service that would transfer content ownership away from
users most likely consisted of cognitive barriers, such as illusion of control and scripts. Illusion of
control would have Instagram's team believing they were in complete control of the terms. For scripts,
Trevino and Nelson (2014) wrote, "Scripts are cognitive frameworks that guide human thought and
action. Although they are generally not written down, scripts contain information about the
appropriate sequence of events in routine situations." (p. 101, para. 2). It is likely the team at
Instagram was expecting users to take the action of accepting the new terms without reading them
carefully, as users often do. Somewhat ironically, Instagram and Facebook's very own social networks
may have been the primary reason word spread so quickly about the new policies and content
ownership changes. Like most legal documents, the amount of wording was significant and the most
salient changes to terms were buried within legalese, which may be thought of as a type of
euphemistic language disengagement. Burying the most important changes within a large amount of
less important material can be seen as a way to minimize the potential recognition of ethical
infringement. There may very well have been a confirmation trap creating an assumption that users
would not bother to read the terms carefully before accepting.
Several years ago it would have been more reasonable to assume a user would not read, or
even become informed about, the specifics within a TOS agreement. With more exposure to

technology users have become increasingly sophisticated and more comfortable at evaluating TOS
agreements. On a social media platform any troubling information regarding TOS can be shared
quickly among many users. In that sense it only takes a few users to actually read and understand the
terms and then they can spread information to many more via social media platforms. If ethically
questionable language is recognized by users, which pertains to the very same social media service
they are using, then they will be highly motivated to share it within the network to inform other
users and raise awareness around the issue.
Proposed Solution:
If a user captured a photo through the lens of their own device, then the underlying
ownership and ability to generate revenues from that photo should not be suddenly transferred to
the service provider who is storing a file copy on their server. Essentially, in terms of ethical design
analysis this would be considered stealing of work. With the level of customization a user can
manipulate on Instagram, and the personal nature of photography as an artistic expression, it is safe
to assume the photos have some meaning or importance to the users. Just because the new service
agreement would make earning revenues from user content legal, does not mean it is ethical.
A reasonable solution for Instagram would be do research and find other ways to accomplish
whatever goals they were seeking through the controversial TOS. Perhaps they were changing the
language so they could leverage user content to expand their own library of assets. If this is the case
they should explore solutions where the users have a choice within the interface of which photos, if
any at all, that they will forfeit the rights to, or perhaps a model that incentivizes the user to allow
use. UX designers are encouraged to empathize with their users, and as a result of this the

experiences created should not cause a user to feel unfairly disadvantaged. If they want to leverage
the user content from the best photographers then design a way for those users to step up into such
an agreement.

Case 5 | Addictive UX: MMORPG & Virtues
Massively multiplayer online role playing games (MMORPG) have been considered
‘addictive’ by players since becoming popular in the early 2000s. A game by Sony called EverQuest is
commonly referred to by users as “EverCrack” due to the long hours they spend playing (Patrizio,
2002). The gaming addiction with MMORPG titles is such an issue that in 2009 the Chinese
government mandated game developers to implement anti-gaming addiction systems in their games
(Toyad, 2014). Tests of the effectiveness for the anti-addiction systems in China showed that only
26 percent of games were accomplishing the goal correctly, emphasizing the challenges in controlling
addictive experiences.
In the UX Magazine article “Towards an Ethics of Persuasion” Anderson (2011) discusses
seductive interaction design, “Of course you can't discuss a topic like seduction or what motivates
people without some awareness that, no matter how playful or well-meaning your intentions are,
these things will certainly be abused. “ (para. 1). In light of this one must ask, where is the line
drawn when addictive patterns emerge among users?
In 2001 a Wisconsin man named Shawn Woolley committed suicide, and family members
believe it was due to his addiction to the MMORPG EverQuest. Woolley was prone to epileptic
seizures and while playing for extended periods, as he often did, he would sometimes suffer from a
seizure (Patrizio, 2002). “Shawn got involved in the game in 2000 and by 2001 it had consumed his
life, Elizabeth said. He'd quit his job and played almost non-stop, eventually being evicted from his
apartment and moving in with his mother, before leaving her home and then being put in a group
home for addictive behavior.” (Patrizio, 2002, para. 11). Sony Online Entertainment (SOE), the

makers of EverQuest, was unwilling to share account usage activity for the week leading up to the
suicide with the Wooley’s mother. In response to the request they cited privacy concerns for other
players, but Woolley’s mother suspects he played for almost the entire week.
Should intentionally addictive experiences have systems to regulate behavior patterns?
Stakeholders:
Primary: Shawn Woolley, his family, UX designers, Sony Online Entertainment
Secondary: Other EverQuest players
Ethical Foundation - Virtue (Character & Integrity):
According to Trevino and Nelson (2014), “The virtue ethics approach focuses more on the
integrity of the moral actor (the person) than on the moral act itself (the decision or behavior). The
goal here is to be a good person because that is the type of person you wish to be” (p.46, para. 3).
With intent playing a large part of virtue ethics, it is important to consider if game companies
understand the role of the entertainment services they provide in the greater context of a user’s life. A
UX designer always has the aim of creating pleasurable experiences, and it is no accident that
MMORPG games are addictive. It is common knowledge that too much time spent on
entertainment, such as video games, will likely reduce the overall quality of life that a user has.
Virtue ethics involve character, which is defined by measurement against expectations of the
relevant moral community. For this we can reference the first item of the UXPA Code of
Professional Conduct (n.d.), “Act in the best interest of everyone” (para. 8, 1st
list item). The

moment it becomes apparent an addictive experience may diminish the user’s overall quality of life,
or reduce their ability to contribute to society, the ethically responsible UX designer would consider
solutions to manage it.
A person with a focus on integrity will measure the consequences of secrecy by using a
disclosure rule: “If you’re inclined to keep it a secret, that should be a clue something isn’t right”
(Trevino & Nelson, 2014, p.55, para. 4). If interface patterns and reward structures in a game reveal
potential addictive responses then it makes sense to measure how this could affect users in the
context of their lives as students, professionals, parents, and other roles they may fill within society.
With limited hours in each day, one can presume that a student playing an MMORPG game 6+
hours each day will have less academic success than a student who spends the same amount of time
studying. The same can be evaluated for adult gamers or parents, the hours playing an MMORPG
take away from the daily allowance for social or family time.
The ethical foundation of virtue would motivate a UX designer with the simple intent to be
a good person and do the right thing. As a designer they would still strive to provide a greatly
enjoyable design, and with the foundation of virtue they would make efforts to mitigate collateral
damage caused by addiction patterns. This would involve delivering the most enjoyable experience
with a level of balance, showing some intent to not allow the user to neglect their other
responsibilities in life.
Moral disengagement can be a psychological factor influencing the decision to release a game
with the knowledge it may lead to addiction. The team at Sony Online Entertainment is probably

aggressively focused on intentionally catering to pleasure signals that they dehumanize the victims.
Allowing players to create avatars and exist for long periods of time within a virtual world is evidence
of the dehumanization theme. Attribution of blame is another way they are likely reducing
identification with the addictive behaviors exemplified by users. By not voluntarily implementing
measures to break the addiction patterns they are displacing the responsibility and blame on the user.
MMORPG games use euphemistic language when rewarding players or distributing
achievements. Killing monsters, finding gold, playing an extra hour to ‘level up’ – all of these things
are presented as great accomplishments, but it was never a considered to suggest a user take a break.
The longer the user plays the game the more they are praised and awarded achievements, each new
one being more attractive than all the ones prior. The consequences of missing important
commitments in the real world are diminished by the constant rewards structure in the virtual game
world.
Proposed Solution:
A proposed solution to the problem could come in the form of a reminders system. A
designer could create rules within the game such as the following: If a playtime in excess of ‘X’
number of hours across ‘Y’ number of days, then present message ‘Z’. In the same way that ethics
training can change the way a person responds to situations, seeing a message in the game can work
to remind a user to change their behavior patterns if they are trending towards addiction. Virtue
ethics are based on intent and this would be a reasonable first step to show good intentions. As with
any of these solutions, there are many other ways to handle the problem. From a UX designer’s

perspective, the ideal solution would preserve the enjoyable aspects of the experience while
mitigating the risks of addiction or harm in an adaptable way.

Summary
As demonstrated in the cases presented, UX practitioners can create significant benefit or
harm to society based on the decisions they make. The variety of subject matter within the cases,
along with the comprehensive coverage of ethical foundations, proves how problems can arise from a
number of sources and there is no “one size fits all” solution. By following the UXPA Code of
Professional Conduct a UX practitioner should expect to achieve great success in their field without
causing harm when balancing conflict. Understanding and applying the material is a step in the right
direction, but true ethical expertise for a UX practitioner must be demonstrated through action.

References
Anderson, Stephen P. (2011, December 13). Towards an ethics of persuasion. UX Magazine.
Retrieved September 16, 2014, from http://uxmag.com/articles/towards-an-ethics-of-
persuasion
Aretz, A. (2013, July 17). The social sciences are alive and well in UX research. Retrieved September
9, 2014, from http://www.momentdesign.com/blog/social-sciences-are-alive-and-well-ux-
research#.VBZccvldV8E
Auto Safety. (n.d.). Texting while driving now leading cause of US teen deaths. Retrieved September
15, 2014, from http://safety.trw.com/texting-while-driving-now-leading-cause-of-us-teen-
deaths/0710/
Bryan, P. (2013, December 23). User experience versus users. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from
http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2013/12/user-experience-versus-users.php
Facebook. (n.d.). Information we receive and how it is used. Retrieved September 14, 2014, from
https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/your-info
Gribbons, B. (2013, March 9). Emerging technologies are creating new ethical challenges for UX
designers. Retrieved September 14, 2014, from https://gigaom.com/2013/03/09/emerging-t
echnologies-are-creating-new-ethical-challenges-for-ux-designers/
Gruener, W. (2013, January 6). Cadillac CUE: why a touch screen is not always a good idea. Retrieved
September 15, 2014, from http://www.tomshardware.com/news/cadillac-cue-entertainment-
ix-ux,20143.html
Kiess, C. (2014, March 24). Placebo buttons, misleading users & the ethics of UX design. Retrieved
September 16, 2014, from http://chriskiess.net/placebo-buttons-misleading-users-the-ethics-
of-ux-design/
Leonard, A. (2013, October 7). When the close button doesn’t close. Retrieved September 16, 2014,
from http://www.salon.com/2013/10/07/when_the_close_button_doesnt_close/
Lombardi, C. (2007, August 28). Are drivers ready for the high-tech onslaught? Retrieved September
14, 2014, from http://news.cnet.com/Are-drivers-ready-for-high-tech-onslaught---page-
2/2100-11389_3-6204706-2.html
Mintz, S. (2013, March 18). Instagram’s terms of service and privacy issues. Ethics Sage. Retrieved
September 15, 2014, from http://www.ethicssage.com/2013/03/instagrams-terms-of-service-
and-privacy-issues.html

Mitchell, R. (2014, February 6). The psychology of waiting, loading animations, and facebook.
Retrieved September 15, 2014, from http://mercury.io/blog/the-psychology-of-waiting-
loading-animations-and-facebook
NHTSA. (2013, April 23). U.S. DOT releases guidelines to minimize in-vehicle distractions [Press
release]. Retrieved September 14,2014, from
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/U.S.+DOT+Releases+Guidelines+to+
Minimize+In-Vehicle+Distractions
Nielsen, J., & Norman, D. (n.d.). The definition of user experience. Retrieved September 16, 2014,
from http://www.nngroup.com/articles/definition-user-experience/
Norman, D., Miller, J., Henderson, A. (1995). What you see, some of what's in the future, and how we
go about doing it. Retrieved September 9, 2014, from
http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/orgover/dan_bdy.htm
Patrizio, A. (2002, April 3). Did game play a role in suicide? Retrieved September 16, 2014, from
http://archive.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2002/04/51490
Richtel, M. (2014, September 13). Trying to hit the brake on texting while driving. Retrieved
September 14, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/business/trying-to-hit-the-
brake-on-texting-while-driving.html?_r=2
Trevino, L., & Nelson, K. (2014). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it
right (Sixth ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Toyad, J. (2014, March 13). China’s anti-gaming addiction measures not effective. Retrieved
September 15, 2014, from http://e27.co/chinas-anti-gaming-addiction-measures-effective/
UXPA. (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2014, from https://uxpa.org/
UXPA Code of Professional Conduct. (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2014, from
https://uxpa.org/resources/uxpa-code-professional-conduct
UX Design Defined. (2010, August 16). Retrieved September 9, 2014, from http://uxdesign.com/ux-
defined
Waldman, K. (2014, June 28). Facebook’s unethical experiment. Retrieved September 16, 2014, from
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/06/facebook_unethical_expe
riment_it_made_news_feeds_happier_or_sadder_to_manipulate.html

Ethical Analysis Applied to User Experience

More Related Content

Similar to Ethical Analysis Applied to User Experience (20)

More from Joe Jancsics (10)

Recently uploaded (20)

Ethical Analysis Applied to User Experience