←back to thread

I'm absolutely right

(absolutelyright.lol)
648 points yoavfr | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.411s | source
Show context
latexr ◴[] No.45138173[source]
As I opened the website, the “16” changed to “17”. This looked interesting, as if the data were being updated live just as I loaded the page. Alas, a refresh (and quick check in the Developer Tools) reveals it’s fake and always does the transition. It’s a cool effect, but feels like a dirty trick.
replies(6): >>45138194 #>>45138198 #>>45138206 #>>45138881 #>>45139583 #>>45146849 #
tantalor ◴[] No.45138198[source]
It's a dark pattern
replies(8): >>45138235 #>>45138298 #>>45138348 #>>45138605 #>>45138692 #>>45138986 #>>45139237 #>>45140033 #
diggan ◴[] No.45138298[source]
Maybe I'm old or just wrong, but "dark pattern" for me means "intentionally misleading" which doesn't seem to be the case here, this is more of a "add liveliness so users can see it's not static data" with no intention of misleading, since it seems to be true that the data is actually dynamic.
replies(3): >>45138362 #>>45138576 #>>45147217 #
sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.45138362[source]
I wouldn't go so far as to call this specific implementation a dark pattern, but it is misleading. It suggests the data updated right when I loaded the page, which obviously isn't true as I can see the same 16->17 transition on a refresh.

I'd prefer a "Data last updated at <timestamp>" indicator somewhere. Now I know it's live data and I know how old the data is. Is it as cute / friendly / fun? Probably not. But it's definitely more precise and less misleading.

replies(2): >>45138712 #>>45139518 #
1. stronglikedan ◴[] No.45138712[source]
the way the website has it implemented is better
replies(1): >>45139056 #
2. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[] No.45139056[source]
That's your opinion. Mine differs.