Should Users Be Punished for Mistakes? Creating empathetic user interfaces while preventing errors

Can we protect sensitive user data, financial security, and even prevent the risk of time loss by mitigating misusage, misclicks, and navigation errors? By embedding features like confirmation prompts for critical actions, offering straightforward guidance for complex processes, and crafting user interfaces that minimize the chances of accidental errors, we can protect users from potential pitfalls.

Let's explore such issues by looking at various scenarios where users encounter forms of punishment for their mistakes, and consider more empathetic alternatives. I will range from common issues to more specific cases, aiming to replace frustration with comfort and support.

Form Validation Errors

😡 Form of punishment: Restricting users from clicking 'Next' or 'Submit' until they've correctly filled out every part of the form. Thus, make them identify and correct their mistakes on their own, with the hope that this will make them more cautious in the future. Additionally, they are required to input their data in a specific format to accommodate the backend CRM systems (e.g. phone number format), without considering the user's ease or understanding.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: Rather than issuing harsh warnings or complicating their progress, adopting a *supportive* approach that helps users through their errors can vastly improve their experience. This could involve gently highlighting fields that need attention and providing clear, helpful instructions on how to correct them. Such feedback not only aids users in fixing their mistakes but also teaches them how to avoid similar errors in the future. As an alternative, we could also minimize the number of mandatory fields and relax the rules for filling out forms.

Authentification Errors

😡 Form of punishment: Users are met with a countdown of attempts, adding pressure and no assistance in recalling their password. Incorrect attempts lead to red alerts and stern warnings, making users feel distrusted by the system. This perception of suspicion can detract from the user experience, fostering a sense of tension rather than security. As a form of punishment, users can encounter deliberate lags after inputting an incorrect password, which reminds me of a noticeable delay in macOS lock screen.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: Enhancing system responsiveness to eliminate entry delays and providing users with *helpful hints* for authentication can significantly improve the experience. Incorporating friendlier messages that avoid conveying a lack of trust toward the user can also enhance the interaction, making it more welcoming and less stressful. After the initial attempts, instead of locking the account, prompt the user to verify their identity through alternative means, such as a verification code sent via email or SMS, biometrics like FaceID, or answering security questions. The best methods are described on the OWASP authentification cheatsheet.

Forgotten Passwords and Tough Recovery Process

😡 Form of punishment: The lack of a straightforward method for users to recall or reset passwords, combined with a cumbersome recovery process and no alternative authentication options, can make users feel punished for simple mistakes or forgetfulness. This situation often leads to increased frustration and may deter users from continuing to use the service.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: Offering user-friendly login recovery options enhances the digital experience significantly. For instance, providing a "send my login link" option on the sign-in page allows users to receive a direct login link via email, eliminating the need to reset a forgotten password. Similarly, sending a one-time password (OTP) to a user's mobile offers a straightforward login method without the frustration of password recall. Additionally, incorporating a password hint feature during registration. The widespread "Reset Password" method, where users receive a reset link via email, remains a staple for account recovery. Some best methods are described on the OWASP cheatsheet.

Accidental Deletion

😡 Form of punishment: Immediate and permanent removal of items like files or emails due to unintended actions, such as swiping in the wrong direction (left vs right), can be extremely frustrating and feel like a punishment for not fully understanding the interface.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: Implementing confirmation prompts before deletion and providing a recovery option through a "Trash" folder. Offering alternatives or making deletion gestures less sensitive can help mitigate this issue, creating a more forgiving and user-friendly experience.

Inadvertent Actions and Randomized Feeds

😡 Form of punishment: Accidentally refreshing a page, like a feed of posts on LinkedIn or watching videos on Instagram (when the feed is randomized), can make you lose your spot or an interesting reel with no way to find it again. This feels like a penalty for a minor mistake.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: Allow users to cancel or confirm a refresh action to prevent accidental losses (however, it could add some friction). Adjusting the delay in milliseconds (or more pixels to pull) to make actions less responsive can also help mitigate these issues, offering a more forgiving user experience. An alternative approach is to maintain the seed of randomization in social media feeds at least once, allowing users to return to a previously viewed video or post.

Accidental Message Sending

😡 Form of punishment: Rushing to press "Send" can cause a moment of panic, especially if we haven't corrected errors, typos, or fully reviewed our message. This haste can leave users feeling punished for their quick action, with seemingly no way to undo the mistake.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: Providing a brief window for users to edit or retract messages post-send, with a clear visual cue (nice and humble animation), can safeguard against embarrassment and confusion. WhatsApp has finally introduced message editing, Gmail offers an undo feature on its website, granting users a moment to reconsider hastily sent messages.

Navigating Nested Menus

😡 Form of punishment: Users navigating through complex, nested menus can easily collapse them by mistake, requiring a restart of their navigation process.

🙂 Empathetic alternative: The optimal solution is to avoid complex nested menus when designing websites. 😉 However, when their use is unavoidable, enhancing user navigation can be achieved through the use of sticky menus or by fine-tuning interaction delays through testing, permitting diagonal cursor movements, which can make navigating through menus more efficient and less frustrating.

However, intentional delays and a less responsive interface can be beneficial in certain scenarios, especially for financial transactions or handling sensitive information. This "think twice" strategy can protect users from potential risks or losses. I tend to call it ‘beneficial friction’, and it has nothing to do with punishment. For instance, banking apps might add not-so-convenient patterns and reduce the responsiveness of the interface during money transfers for users to review their actions, and calculator apps could slow down response times to prevent input mistakes.

In conclusion, rather than penalizing users for errors, adopting a design philosophy that anticipates and accommodates mistakes can create a more positive, forgiving digital environment. By implementing user-centric design solutions – such as clear guidance during form validation, recovery options for accidental deletions, undo features for inadvertent actions, and performance optimizations for critical applications – we foster a digital world that supports rather than punishes its users.