Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware. If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.
Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.
> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.
At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.
> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too.
Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.
If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
It is not really about what it directly means. It is about changing the social ideas of white or lighter things meaning good, while black or darker things meaning bad.
This one is a stretch. 'Dark pattern' makes me think of something like a burglar hiding in the darkness of shadows or nighttime, not race.
And the website in question is hosted by the Australian government, American censorship doesn't come into the picture..
Thanks, I updated the text putting the US bit in parentheses.
For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology. In general it is about the whole range of feelings and perceptions around "dark" and how they lead to biases in people, often without being aware. If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc. some of that may seep through in how people with dark skin are considered. Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
> For black-list/white-list replacing with block-list/allow-list (also more descriptive) is a a clearer example of the rationale to change the terminology.
Sometimes it is more descriptive, but sometimes other words will be more descriptive, too. (Usually the words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not hyphenated from what I could see, though) Sometimes the list is used to block and allow something, but sometimes other words such as exclude and include will be better. To really be more descriptive you might write e.g. "allow by default but deny whatever is listed", and "deny by default but allow only what is listed", etc.
> If we become conditioned that uses of "dark" invoke gut feelings of sneaky, shady, illegal, secretive, nefarious, evil, etc.
At least to me, it does not. It might be secretive (because, it is dark, it cannot be seen; however, just because it cannot be seen does not necessarily imply that they intend to keep it secret and prevent anyone from knowing what it is), does not necessarily mean it is illegal and nefarious and evil.
> Whether that is true or not, in any case, the alternative terminology being more descriptive, it is low-hanging fruit to adopt it.
I do agree, if you actually do have a better more descriptive terminology, it will be better, although being more descriptive can also make the wording too long, so that can be a disadvantage too. Also, sometimes words are suggested, which do not sound good, or are too similar to the other word.
1 reply →
If someone has cognitive dissonance over hearing the word "dark" and immediately jumps to a racist interpretation, it's really not my problem to fix. Racism exists in many forms, and the road to hell is paved in good intentions. I would argue that avoiding the word "dark" because it reminds you of black people is pretty damned racist.
3 replies →
I agree that "dark pattern" does not to me think of race, either, but I think that "deceptive design" is a better word anyways.
It is not really about what it directly means. It is about changing the social ideas of white or lighter things meaning good, while black or darker things meaning bad.