Canonical term
Each concept has one primary detail route. Alternative spellings and research labels are searchable synonyms rather than duplicate pages.
Plain-language reference
This glossary defines 39 canonical customer-journey practices and keeps common synonyms attached to one record. The terms help teams describe interfaces and behaviours consistently. They are not statutory labels, findings about a real business or automatic conclusions under Australian law.
Each concept has one primary detail route. Alternative spellings and research labels are searchable synonyms rather than duplicate pages.
Seven broader families make the library easier to scan. A family describes a design mechanism, not a separate legal test.
Each detail page separates current law, the enacted 2027 provisions, pending material and editorial implementation guidance.
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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextClaims 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextContent 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextThe 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextDistinct 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextEnding 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextThe 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextInformation 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextMaterial 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextOption 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextThe 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextAccess 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextParallel 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextAccess 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextAccess 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextThe 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextDesired 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextSilence, 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextAggregate 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextPrivacy 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextA 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.
View examples, boundaries and legal contextStart with observable interface facts: what the person was trying to do, which information and choices appeared, what changed across the sequence and what outcome followed. Use a glossary term to organise review, then test inclusion criteria, exclusions and legitimate uses on the detail page. Legal assessment comes afterwards and must apply the actual provision, scope, evidence and procedural status. This prevents a useful UX vocabulary from becoming an unsupported allegation.
Evidence base