Visual learning directory · 78 comparisons
Choose one of seven groups, then open the relevant practice page to see its two original HTML comparisons side by side. This directory stays compact while every detail page retains the complete definition, boundary cases, neutral alternatives and Australian legal information.
Every scenario is fictional and depicts no real business. A comparison teaches a design mechanism; it does not establish that similar conduct is unlawful.
Seven practice groups
Each row shows the example titles before you open a full practice guide. Keep every group closed for a quick overview, or expand only the area relevant to your journey.
Conditions access to a desired function on an additional action, disclosure or commitment that is not inherently required for the user's goal.
Content continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
The service extracts contact information, sends or prepares unwanted invitations, or ties functionality to recruiting other people. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Access or progression is conditioned on disclosing personal information that appears unnecessary, excessive or used for an insufficiently explained secondary purpose. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Access is conditioned on accepting optional or separable data uses, communications or permissions as one bundled choice. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
The user must create an account, or is led to believe one is required, to complete a goal that could plausibly be provided without it. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Desired functionality is practically conditioned on repetitive engagement or an additional payment not sufficiently clear at acquisition. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Privileges business-favoured actions through visual, linguistic or structural presentation of choices and information.
Distinct products, services, permissions or purposes are grouped under one choice so the user cannot readily understand or select them separately. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
The volume or organisation of options or information makes meaningful comparison impractical and channels users toward a default or business-favoured path. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Material guidance is presented in a language or level of complexity that makes informed choice materially harder for the target user. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Option labels use shame, guilt, fear or asymmetric emotional framing to move the user away from the outcome they would otherwise choose. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A promotional or biased action is presented as ordinary content or as a different control, causing interaction under a mistaken understanding. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Parallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A control does not let the user reasonably predict its material outcome before activation. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Information relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A business-favoured option with a plausible adverse consequence is active before a deliberate user choice. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A more expensive or profitable option is made the practical focal choice through preselection, visual prominence or obscured lower-cost alternatives. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A question or control uses confusing, reversed or leading semantics so the user's likely interpretation may not match the resulting choice. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Repeatedly interrupts or asks the user to take a business-favoured action after the user has declined, deferred or ignored it.
A business-favoured request repeatedly interrupts the user after decline, dismissal or non-response without a durable way to stop it. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Adds unnecessary friction, barriers or dead ends to dissuade the user from a choice, right or task.
Deleting an account is unavailable, disguised as another outcome or burdened by unnecessary barriers. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Ending an existing subscription, recurring service or permission is made difficult to find or complete through unnecessary steps or channel asymmetry. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Information needed to compare products, plans or consequences is presented in inconsistent, fragmented or unusable form. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Access to support needed to resolve a purchase, account, charge or right is hidden or burdened by unnecessary loops and dead ends. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A consumer-favourable route cannot reach its represented outcome and instead loops, stalls or loses progress. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A proprietary currency makes the real monetary cost or remaining value unnecessarily hard to understand. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A relevant alternative within the current decision is hidden, blocked or made materially harder than the business-favoured action. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Privacy controls are fragmented, inconsistently labelled or layered so that limiting collection or use is unnecessarily difficult. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Hides, disguises or delays material consequences so that the user takes an action they may otherwise reject.
The user selects a represented action or offer but receives a materially different outcome that favours the business. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A mandatory or foreseeable charge is omitted, obscured or revealed only after the user has invested effort in the transaction. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Silence, inactivity or an ineffective prior interaction is treated as authorisation for a paid or consequential transaction. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A paid or consequential item is added to a basket or transaction without a clear, deliberate and specific user choice. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A transaction creates or continues recurring liability without effective, timely disclosure of the subscription, renewal and exit consequences. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Applies temporal or quantitative pressure through real, exaggerated or fabricated scarcity claims.
A visible countdown applies time pressure, particularly where it resets, is personalised without disclosure or has no corresponding consequence at zero. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A claim of unusually high current demand is used to accelerate a decision without a clear or supportable basis. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A textual deadline or temporary-reservation claim pressures action, particularly where the deadline renews or its stated consequence does not occur. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A claim that few units remain applies purchase pressure, especially where inventory basis or persistence is unsupported. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
A useful review asks what the person intended, which information and alternatives appeared, how the state changed, what operational fact supported each claim and what outcome followed. It then applies current law, the enacted 2027 provisions and pending material as separate layers. Saving the surrounding journey helps teams distinguish an isolated visual similarity from a repeated mechanism with practical consequences.
Evidence base
Social proof3 practices · 6 examples
Social proof examples
Uses claimed behaviour, approval or popularity among other people to accelerate or steer a decision.
Activity messages
Claims about recent or current actions by other users are used to steer the decision, particularly where authenticity, timing or relevance is unsupported. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Included comparisons
- Randomised recent-purchase notification
- Fabricated named signup notification
Open the complete pattern guide →Popularity claims
Aggregate popularity or approval is presented to steer a choice where the metric, population, period or basis is unclear or unsupported. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Included comparisons
- “Most popular” has no defined metric
- Bestseller badge follows margin rather than sales
Open the complete pattern guide →Testimonials or endorsements
A named or attributed person's approval is used persuasively without sufficient authenticity, representativeness or relationship disclosure. This is a design and research taxonomy for learning and evidence review, not a statutory offence label or an automatic finding that an interface is unlawful.
Included comparisons
- Paid creator recommendation lacks disclosure
- Employee review presented as independent expertise
Open the complete pattern guide →