You're assuming that clarity is universal - that if you understand something, it must be clear enough for everyone else. That's a textbook case of the false consensus effect and _neurotypical bias_.
"Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches)" is not unambiguous. Many people - especially those with ASD, ADHD, or even just different mental models - interpret "web search" as internal search on the platform. That's a completely reasonable interpretation given how most websites work. Even the word "discoverable" sounds passive and controlled, not synonymous with "permanently indexed by Google."
UX isn't about spoon-feeding idiots. It's about reducing cognitive load and accommodating different cognitive styles. Good UI accounts for diverse interpretations and explains high-stakes actions with precision. This option failed that standard.
And your argument boils down to: "Well, it told you, technically." That’s not good enough. Legally, ethically, and practically, when an action has severe privacy implications, "technically correct" is a euphemism for design failure.
This isn't about dumbing things down. It's about not designing exclusively for people who think like you. If you exclude everyone who reads or processes information differently, you're not building tech for the public - you're just building for a clique.
"Make this chat discoverable (Allows it to be shown in web searches)" is not unambiguous. Many people - especially those with ASD, ADHD, or even just different mental models - interpret "web search" as internal search on the platform. That's a completely reasonable interpretation given how most websites work. Even the word "discoverable" sounds passive and controlled, not synonymous with "permanently indexed by Google."
UX isn't about spoon-feeding idiots. It's about reducing cognitive load and accommodating different cognitive styles. Good UI accounts for diverse interpretations and explains high-stakes actions with precision. This option failed that standard.
And your argument boils down to: "Well, it told you, technically." That’s not good enough. Legally, ethically, and practically, when an action has severe privacy implications, "technically correct" is a euphemism for design failure.
This isn't about dumbing things down. It's about not designing exclusively for people who think like you. If you exclude everyone who reads or processes information differently, you're not building tech for the public - you're just building for a clique.