Feedforward ambiguity
Sharing toggle has no visible state meaning
A fictional profile uses a switch labelled “Visibility” without saying whether the current position makes activity public or private.
Individual HTML example · Interface interference
“Continue” places a paid order
A fictional checkout ends with a button labelled only “Continue”, although activating it immediately places the $86 order.
This is an original fictional comparison. It depicts no real business and is not a regulator finding, statutory category or legal safe harbour.
“Continue” places a paid order
A fictional checkout ends with a button labelled only “Continue”, although activating it immediately places the $86 order.
Review complete. The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.. Continue. Place order and pay $86
Ready to place order. The action states the purchase outcome and amount.. Amount affected: $86. Place order and pay $86. Continue. Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Place order and pay $86” is activated.
Why the first version can mislead: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Continue” with “Place order and pay $86”. A shopper cannot predict that the next action creates a payment obligation.
What a fairer design does: Name the material outcome and payable total directly on the final control, before activation creates the order.
Show annotated differences (4)
Potentially problematic version
- The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.Why this state matters: The presentation changes what the user can notice or predict at the checkout decision. The problematic state shows: “The final control gives no indication that it submits payment.” Its influence should be tested by comparing the consequence and usability of “Continue” with “Place order and pay $86”. A shopper cannot predict that the next action creates a payment obligation.
- Place order and pay $86Review prompt: Do “Continue” and “Place order and pay $86” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
Neutral alternative
- The action states the purchase outcome and amount.Fairer design: Name the material outcome and payable total directly on the final control, before activation creates the order.
- Payable total and selected items, expanded: The summary shows the line items and total before “Place order and pay $86” is activated.Review prompt: Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The action has a material outcome”?
Review questions (3)
- Do “Continue” and “Place order and pay $86” receive comparable prominence and explain their consequences before activation?
- Compare the basket before and after the action, including total and line items; does the mutation satisfy “The action has a material outcome”?
- What neutral rendering or comprehension result would falsify the classification, particularly in light of “Conventional navigation with no material commitment”?
Complete practice context
How this example relates to Feedforward ambiguity
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.
The full guide explains inclusion and exclusion criteria, potential harms, fairer design, evidence questions and separate Australian legal information layers. The example page isolates one scenario so it can be shared and discussed without reproducing the complete library on one page.
Continue comparing
Related examples
Open this example
Bundled options
Ticket and travel pass presented as one package
A fictional ticket seller offers a concert ticket only through a control that also adds a city travel pass, although the travel component is separately deliverable and not required for entry.
Bundled options
Support and migration locked into one plan
A fictional service offers a core plan only as a bundle with premium support and data migration, while implying those extras can be removed later although no controls exist.
Sources and provenance for this example
Evidence base
Sources
- An Ontology of Dark Patterns KnowledgeGray et al.; ACM CHI 2024 · Secondary · checked 2026-09-14 · DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642436; arXiv:2309.09640
- Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Act 2026Federal Register of Legislation · Primary · checked 2026-09-14 · C2026A00064