pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15338 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-10 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.CR· cs.CY

Access Over Deception: Fighting Deceptive Patterns through Accessibility

Tobias Pellkvist , Katie Seaborn , Miu Kojima This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 13:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.CRcs.CY
keywords deceptive patternsdark patternsWCAGaccessibilityheuristic evaluationuser interfacemanipulative designinclusive design
0
0 comments X

The pith

Three deceptive patterns—countdown timers, auto-play, and hidden information—violate WCAG guidelines.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether web accessibility standards can serve as a practical tool against deceptive user interface patterns that push users toward actions against their interests. Authors performed a heuristic evaluation to map a set of deceptive patterns onto the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and related laws such as the European Accessibility Act. Statistical checks found no reliable differences across broad pattern categories, yet three patterns emerged as clearly implicated by the guidelines. The work positions accessibility compliance as one existing lever for reducing manipulative design without requiring entirely new rules. A sympathetic reader would care because accessibility laws already carry enforcement weight and could protect users who are especially vulnerable to these tactics.

Core claim

Through heuristic evaluation the authors map deceptive patterns against WCAG success criteria and conclude that Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information patterns are implicated by the guidelines. Overall statistical analysis showed no significant differences by pattern type, yet the three identified patterns supply concrete targets for using accessibility requirements to limit UI-based deception and support inclusive design.

What carries the argument

Heuristic evaluation that checks whether deceptive patterns violate or conform to WCAG success criteria and related accessibility statutes.

If this is right

  • Design teams can add checks for countdown timers, auto-play, and hidden information to standard WCAG audits.
  • Existing accessibility legislation gains an additional use case in challenging manipulative interfaces.
  • Targeted rather than blanket application of the guidelines is required, since most pattern types showed no statistical link.
  • Inclusive design practices gain a concrete set of patterns to prioritize for removal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Routine accessibility audits could double as deceptive-pattern screens, changing how compliance teams allocate review time.
  • Regulators might cite WCAG violations when pursuing cases against sites that use these three patterns at scale.
  • The same mapping approach could be tested against mobile accessibility guidelines or emerging standards for voice interfaces.

Load-bearing premise

The authors' heuristic evaluation correctly and exhaustively maps deceptive patterns onto specific WCAG success criteria without missing context-dependent violations or stretching the guidelines.

What would settle it

A controlled user study measuring whether people with visual impairments or low digital literacy actually experience reduced harm or altered behavior when the three flagged patterns are removed from live interfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15338 by Katie Seaborn, Miu Kojima, Tobias Pellkvist.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example of Bad Defaults. The “Subscribe & Save 20%” and “Join program” options are preselected. The WCAG tools [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example of Nagging. A pop-up about a desktop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example of Trick Questions. Clicking the checkbox [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bar chart showing the distribution of normalized accessibility issue counts per DP type for high-level DPs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Bar chart showing the distribution of normalized accessibility issue counts per DP type for lowest-level DPs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Bar chart showing the counts of examples that have accessibility issues (orange, lower) vs. examples without accessi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Bar chart showing the counts of examples with accessibility issues (orange, left) vs. examples without accessibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deceptive patterns, dark patterns, and manipulative user interfaces (UI) are a widely used design strategy that manipulates users to act against their own interests in pursuit of shareholder aims. These patterns may particularly affect people with less education, visual impairments, and older adults. Yet, access is a critical feature of the user experience (UX), development standards, and law. We considered whether and how the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and related legislation, like the European Accessibility Act (EAA), could act as a tool against deceptive patterns. We used heuristic evaluation to analyze whether and how deceptive patterns violate or conform to these guidelines and legal statutes. Although statistical analysis revealed no significant differences by pattern type, we identified three patterns implicated by the WCAG guidelines: Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information. We offer this approach as one tool in the fight against UI-based deception and in support of inclusive design.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that WCAG guidelines and related legislation (e.g., EAA) can serve as a tool against deceptive patterns in UI design. Using heuristic evaluation, the authors analyze a set of patterns and, despite finding no statistically significant differences by pattern type, identify Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information as the three patterns implicated by WCAG success criteria. They position this mapping as one approach to support inclusive design and combat manipulative interfaces, particularly for vulnerable users.

Significance. If the mapping is reproducible, the work offers a concrete bridge between accessibility standards and dark-pattern regulation, potentially enabling legal and standards-based interventions that benefit users with disabilities or lower digital literacy. It applies a standard HCI method (heuristic evaluation) to a timely problem and could inform future design guidelines or enforcement.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods (heuristic evaluation)] Methods section on heuristic evaluation: no details are provided on the number of evaluators, inter-rater reliability, consensus process, exact WCAG success criteria applied to each pattern, or decision rules for declaring a pattern 'implicated.' These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim—that Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information are the patterns implicated by WCAG—rests entirely on this unreported mapping; without them the result cannot be reproduced or verified.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results: the statement that 'statistical analysis revealed no significant differences' should specify the test, sample size, and effect-size details to allow readers to assess the claim that three patterns can still be highlighted.
  2. [Results] The paper would benefit from an explicit table or appendix listing each evaluated pattern against the specific WCAG criteria it was judged to violate or conform to.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback and for identifying an important gap in the description of our methods. We agree that greater transparency is needed to support reproducibility of the heuristic evaluation and the resulting mapping to WCAG success criteria.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (heuristic evaluation)] Methods section on heuristic evaluation: no details are provided on the number of evaluators, inter-rater reliability, consensus process, exact WCAG success criteria applied to each pattern, or decision rules for declaring a pattern 'implicated.' These omissions are load-bearing because the central claim—that Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information are the patterns implicated by WCAG—rests entirely on this unreported mapping; without them the result cannot be reproduced or verified.

    Authors: We agree that the current manuscript does not provide these methodological details. In the revised version we will expand the Methods section to describe the heuristic evaluation procedure in full, including the number of evaluators, inter-rater reliability, the consensus process, the specific WCAG success criteria applied to each deceptive pattern, and the decision rules used to determine whether a pattern is implicated. These additions will directly address the reproducibility concern and allow independent verification of the identification of Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: mapping relies on external WCAG criteria and legislation

full rationale

The paper applies heuristic evaluation to assess deceptive patterns against the externally defined WCAG success criteria and EAA legislation. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive the identification of Countdown Timer, Auto-Play, and Hidden Information as implicated patterns. The statistical result of no significant differences by pattern type is independent of the interpretive mapping, which draws on external benchmarks rather than reducing to any author-defined input or prior self-citation. The derivation is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that WCAG success criteria are a valid and sufficient lens for detecting deceptive intent. No free parameters are introduced. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption WCAG success criteria can be applied to detect manipulative design intent
    Invoked when mapping deceptive patterns to accessibility violations in the heuristic evaluation section.
  • domain assumption Heuristic evaluation by the research team produces reliable mappings to legal statutes
    Underlying the identification of the three implicated patterns.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5461 in / 1392 out tokens · 35102 ms · 2026-05-15T13:52:16.830105+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sanju Ahuja, Johanna Gunawan, Nataliia Bielova, and Cristiana Teixeira Santos

    work page

  2. [2]

    InCompanion Publication of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25)

    Towards Key Contributing Factors in Identifying Dark Pattern Autonomy Violations under the EU Digital Services Act. InCompanion Publication of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 501–507. doi:10.1145/3715668.3736336

    work page doi:10.1145/3715668.3736336 2025

  3. [3]

    Sanju Ahuja and Jyoti Kumar. 2022. Conceptualizations of user autonomy within the normative evaluation of dark patterns.Ethics and Information Technology24, 4 (Dec. 2022). doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09672-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10676-022-09672-9 2022

  4. [4]

    Amaia Aizpurua, Simon Harper, and Markel Vigo. 2016. Exploring the relation- ship between web accessibility and user experience.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies91 (July 2016), 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.008 2016

  5. [5]

    Not Knowing What You Don’t Know

    Jeffrey P. Bigham, Irene Lin, and Saiph Savage. 2017. The Effects of “Not Knowing What You Don’t Know” on Web Accessibility for Blind Web Users. InProceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Com- puters and Accessibility (ASSETS ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 101–109. doi:10.1145/3132525.3132533

    work page doi:10.1145/3132525.3132533 2017

  6. [6]

    Kerstin Bongard-Blanchy, Arianna Rossi, Salvador Rivas, Sophie Doublet, Vincent Koenig, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2021. ”I am Definitely Manipulated, Even When I am Aware of it. It’s Ridiculous!” - Dark Patterns from the End-User Perspective. InDesigning Interactive Systems Conference 2021 (DIS ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 763–776. doi:10.1145/3461778.3462086

    work page doi:10.1145/3461778.3462086 2021

  7. [7]

    2025.European Accessibility Act: Risks of non-compliance and key authorities

    Patrick Viktor Born and Merel van Aar. 2025.European Accessibility Act: Risks of non-compliance and key authorities. Technical Report. Field- fisher. https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/insights/understanding-the-european- accessibility-act-risks-of-non-compliance-and-key-authorities

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Martin Brenncke. 2024. Regulating Dark Patterns.Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law14 (2024). Issue 1. https://scholarship.law. nd.edu/ndjicl/vol14/iss1/5

    work page 2024

  9. [9]

    2024.Screen Reader for Web Accessibility Tutorials

    Wolfgang Helmut Bubich. 2024.Screen Reader for Web Accessibility Tutorials. An evaluation of interactive web forms. Technical Report. TU Wien. doi:10.34726/ HSS.2024.115700

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Weichen Joe Chang, Katie Seaborn, and Andrew A. Adams. 2024. Theorizing deception: A scoping review of theory in research on dark patterns and deceptive design. InExtended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article No. 321. doi:10.1145/3613905.3650997

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3650997 2024

  11. [11]

    Clarke, Maryam Mehrnezhad, and Ehsan Toreini

    James M. Clarke, Maryam Mehrnezhad, and Ehsan Toreini. 2024. Invisible, Unreadable, and Inaudible Cookie Notices: An Evaluation of Cookie Notices for Users with Visual Impairments.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing17, 1 (March 2024), 1–39. doi:10.1145/3641281

    work page doi:10.1145/3641281 2024

  12. [12]

    Jacob Cohen. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement20, 1 (April 1960), 37–46. doi:10.1177/ 001316446002000104

    work page 1960

  13. [13]

    Federal Trade Commission. 2024. FTC Sends Refund Payments to Consumers Impacted by Epic Games’ Unlawful Billing Practices. https://www.ftc.gov/news- events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-sends-refund-payments-consumers- impacted-epic-games-unlawful-billing-practices

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    World Wide Web Consortium et al. 1999. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    World Wide Web Consortium et al. 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

    work page 2008

  16. [16]

    World Wide Web Consortium et al. n.d.. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/wcag3-intro/ Accessed version: Update on 24 November 2025

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Gregory Conti and Edward Sobiesk. 2010. Malicious interface design: Exploiting the user. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 271–280. doi:10.1145/1772690.1772719

    work page doi:10.1145/1772690.1772719 2010

  18. [18]

    Dickinson

    Gregory M. Dickinson. 2023. Privately Policing Dark Patterns.Georgia Law Review57, 4 (2023). https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol57/iss4/5 https: //arxiv.org/abs/2307.07888

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2024. EU Digital Fairness Act (DFA). https://digitalfairnessact.com/

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    European Parliament, Council of the European Union. 2024. European Digital Services Act (DSA). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    2024.Social Report 2024 Volume I: Departmental Activities

    Care Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection (BMS- GPK). 2024.Social Report 2024 Volume I: Departmental Activities. Technical Report. Federal Ministry of Social Affairs, Health, Care and Consumer Protection (BMSGPK). https://www.parlament.gv.at/dokument/BR/III-BR/849/imfname_ 1621807.pdf Accessed: 2025-12-02

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    2022.Bringing Dark Patterns to Light

    Federal Trade Commission. 2022.Bringing Dark Patterns to Light. Technical Report. Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/reports/bringing-dark- patterns-light Accessed: 2025-08-24

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Francisco Filipe, Ivan Miguel Pires, and António Jorge Gouveia. 2023. Why Web Accessibility Is Important for Your Institution.Procedia Computer Science219 (2023), 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.259

    work page doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.259 2023

  24. [24]

    B. J. Fogg. 2002. Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do.Ubiquity2002, December (Dec. 2002), 2. doi:10.1145/764008.763957

    work page doi:10.1145/764008.763957 2002

  25. [25]

    Sara Gartland, Paul Flynn, Maria Ana Carneiro, Greg Holloway, Jose de Sousa Fi- alho, Joe Cullen, Emma Hamilton, Amy Harris, and Clare Cullen. 2022. The State of Web Accessibility for People with Cognitive Disabilities: A Rapid Evidence Assessment.Behavioral Sciences12, 2 (Jan. 2022), 26. doi:10.3390/bs12020026

    work page doi:10.3390/bs12020026 2022

  26. [26]

    2023.Accessibility Statements and Data Protection Notices: What Can Data Protection Law Learn from the Concept of Accessibility?Springer Nature Switzerland, Switzerland, 184–197

    Olga Gkotsopoulou. 2023.Accessibility Statements and Data Protection Notices: What Can Data Protection Law Learn from the Concept of Accessibility?Springer Nature Switzerland, Switzerland, 184–197. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_14

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_14 2023

  27. [27]

    Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L

    Colin M. Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L. Toombs

    work page

  28. [28]

    Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L

    The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3173574.3174108

    work page doi:10.1145/3173574.3174108 2018

  29. [29]

    Gray, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, Nataliia Bielova, and Thomas Mildner

    Colin M. Gray, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, Nataliia Bielova, and Thomas Mildner

    work page

  30. [30]

    Gray, Cristiana Teixeira Santos, Nataliia Bielova, and Thomas Mildner

    An Ontology of Dark Patterns Knowledge: Foundations, Definitions, and a Pathway for Shared Knowledge-Building. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–22. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642436

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642436

  31. [31]

    KnownHost. 2024. Most Common Dark Patterns on E-Commerce Sites. https://www.knownhost.com/blog/most-common-dark-patterns-on-e- commerce-sites/. Pellkvist et al

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    2023.Towards Assessing Features of Dark Patterns in Cookie Consent Processes

    Emre Kocyigit, Arianna Rossi, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2023.Towards Assessing Features of Dark Patterns in Cookie Consent Processes. Springer Nature Switzerland, New York, NY, USA, 165–183. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_13

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-31971-6_13 2023

  33. [33]

    Emre Kocyigit, Arianna Rossi, and Gabriele Lenzini. 2024. A Systematic Approach for A Reliable Detection of Deceptive Design Patterns Through Measurable HCI Features. InProceedings of the 2024 European Symposium on Usable Security (EuroUSEC 2024). ACM, Manchester, UK, 290–308. doi:10.1145/3688459.3688475

    work page doi:10.1145/3688459.3688475 2024

  34. [34]

    Satwik Ram Kodandaram, Mohan Sunkara, Sampath Jayarathna, and Vikas Ashok. 2023. Detecting Deceptive Dark-Pattern Web Advertisements for Blind Screen-Reader Users.Journal of Imaging9, 11 (Nov. 2023), 239. doi:10.3390/ jimaging9110239

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Aki Lempola, Timo Poranen, and Zheying Zhang. 2024. Comparing automatic accessibility testing tools. InAnnual Doctoral Symposium of Computer Science. CEUR-WS, Aachen, Germany, 43–53. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3776/paper05.pdf Accessed: 2026-01-20

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Martinez, Maitraye Das, and James Fogarty

    Aaleyah Lewis, Jesse J. Martinez, Maitraye Das, and James Fogarty. 2025. Inac- cessible and Deceptive: Examining Experiences of Deceptive Design with People Who Use Visual Accessibility Technology. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713784

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713784 2025

  37. [37]

    Jamie Luguri and Lior Jacob Strahilevitz. 2021. Shining a Light on Dark Patterns. Journal of Legal Analysis13, 1 (Jan. 2021), 43–109. doi:10.1093/jla/laaa006

    work page doi:10.1093/jla/laaa006 2021

  38. [38]

    Delvani Antônio Mateus, Carlos Alberto Silva, Arthur F. B. A. De Oliveira, Heitor Costa, and André Pimenta Freire. 2021. A Systematic Mapping of Accessibility Problems Encountered on Websites and Mobile Apps: A Comparison Between Automated Tests, Manual Inspections and User Evaluations.Journal on Interactive Systems12, 1 (Nov. 2021), 145–171. doi:10.5753/...

    work page doi:10.5753/jis.2021.1778 2021

  39. [39]

    Mathur, G

    Arunesh Mathur, Gunes Acar, Michael J. Friedman, Eli Lucherini, Jonathan Mayer, Marshini Chetty, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1–32. doi:10.1145/3359183

    work page doi:10.1145/3359183 2019

  40. [40]

    Arunesh Mathur, Mihir Kshirsagar, and Jonathan Mayer. 2021. What Makes a Dark Pattern... Dark?: Design Attributes, Normative Considerations, and Measurement Methods. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445610

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445610 2021

  41. [41]

    The impact of generative AI on critical thinking: Self-reported reductions in cognitive effort and confidence effects from a survey of knowledge workers

    Thomas Mildner, Daniel Fidel, Evropi Stefanidi, Paweł W. Woźniak, Rainer Malaka, and Jasmin Niess. 2025. A Comparative Study of How People With and Without ADHD Recognise and Avoid Dark Patterns on Social Media. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713776 2025

  42. [42]

    Doyle, Benjamin R

    Thomas Mildner, Merle Freye, Gian-Luca Savino, Philip R. Doyle, Benjamin R. Cowan, and Rainer Malaka. 2023. Defending Against the Dark Arts: Recognis- ing Dark Patterns in Social Media. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2362–2374. doi:10.1145/3563657.3595964

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3595964 2023

  43. [43]

    Arvind Narayanan, Arunesh Mathur, Marshini Chetty, and Mihir Kshirsagar

    work page

  44. [44]

    doi:10.1145/3400899.3400901

    Dark Patterns: Past, Present, and Future: The evolution of tricky user interfaces.Queue18, 2 (April 2020), 67–92. doi:10.1145/3400899.3400901

    work page doi:10.1145/3400899.3400901 2020

  45. [45]

    Liming Nie, Yangyang Zhao, Chenglin Li, Xuqiong Luo, and Yang Liu. 2024. Shadows in the Interface: A Comprehensive Study on Dark Patterns.Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering1 (July 2024), 204–225. doi:10.1145/3643736

    work page doi:10.1145/3643736 2024

  46. [46]

    Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’90). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 249–256. doi:10.1145/97243.97281

    work page doi:10.1145/97243.97281 1990

  47. [47]

    Sam Niknejad, Thomas Mildner, Nima Zargham, Susanne Putze, and Rainer Malaka. 2024. Level Up or Game Over: Exploring How Dark Patterns Shape Mobile Games. InProceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM ’24). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 148–156. doi:10. 1145/3701571.3701604

    work page arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Midas Nouwens, Ilaria Liccardi, Michael Veale, David Karger, and Lalana Ka- gal. 2020. Dark Patterns after the GDPR: Scraping Consent Pop-ups and Demonstrating their Influence. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376321

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376321 2020

  49. [49]

    2011.AARP Foundation National Fraud Vic- tim Study

    Karla Pak and Doug Shadel. 2011.AARP Foundation National Fraud Vic- tim Study. Technical Report. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/surveys_statistics/ econ/2011/2011-aarp-national-fraud-victim-study.pdf Accessed: 2025-08-24

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    European Parlaiment and the Council of the European Union. 2019. Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parlaiment and of the Concil. https://eur-lex.europa. eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019L0882 Accessed: 2025-12-02

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    Jonathan Robert Pool. 2023. Accessibility Metatesting: Comparing Nine Testing Tools. In20th International Web for All Conference (W4A ’23). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1–4. doi:10.1145/3587281.3587282

    work page doi:10.1145/3587281.3587282 2023

  52. [52]

    Christopher Power, André Freire, Helen Petrie, and David Swallow. 2012. Guide- lines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 433–442. doi:10.1145/2207676.2207736

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676.2207736 2012

  53. [53]

    Lorena Sánchez Chamorro, Romain Toebosch, and Carine Lallemand. 2024. Manipulative design and older adults: Co-creating magic machines to under- stand experiences of online manipulation. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM De- signing Interactive Systems Conference. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 668–684. doi:10.1145/3643834.3661513

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661513 2024

  54. [54]

    Cristiana Santos, Nataliia Bielova, Sanju Ahuja, Christine Utz, Colin Gray, and Gilles Mertens. 2024. Which Online Platforms and Dark Patterns Should Be Regulated under Article 25 of the DSA?SSRN4899559 (2024), 39 pages. doi:10. 2139/ssrn.4899559

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    Juergen Sauer, Andreas Sonderegger, and Sven Schmutz. 2020. Usability, user experience and accessibility: towards an integrative model.Ergonomics63, 10 (June 2020), 1207–1220. doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080

    work page doi:10.1080/00140139.2020.1774080 2020

  56. [56]

    René Schäfer, Sarah Sahabi, Annabell Brocker, and Jan Borchers. 2024. Growing Up With Dark Patterns: How Children Perceive Malicious User Interface Designs. InProceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Uppsala, Sweden)(NordiCHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 25, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/367...

    work page doi:10.1145/3679318.3685358 2024

  57. [57]

    Sven Schmutz, Andreas Sonderegger, and Juergen Sauer. 2017. Implementing Recommendations From Web Accessibility Guidelines: A Comparative Study of Nondisabled Users and Users With Visual Impairments.Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society59, 6 (May 2017), 956–972. doi:10.1177/0018720817708397

    work page doi:10.1177/0018720817708397 2017

  58. [58]

    Daniel Susser, Beate Roessler, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2019. Technology, auton- omy, and manipulation.Internet Policy Review8, 2 (2019), 1–22. doi:10.14763/ 2019.2.1410

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    2025.Dark Patterns and Addictive Designs

    Xin Ye. 2025.Dark Patterns and Addictive Designs. Technical Report. Weizenbaum Institute. doi:10.34669/WI.WJDS/5.3.2

    work page doi:10.34669/wi.wjds/5.3.2 2025

  60. [60]

    Weiwei Yi and Zihao Li. 2025. Mapping the scholarship of the regulation of dark patterns: A systematic review of concepts, regulatory paradigms, and solutions from law and HCI perspectives. 23 pages. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106225

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106225 2025

  61. [61]

    Edyta Zduńska-Leseux and Alina Szypulewska-Porczyńska. 2024. Factors and expected impacts of implementing the European Accessibility Act: economic and social perspectives.Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie/Politechnika Śląska2024, 199 (2024), 661–670. doi:10.29119/1641-3466.2024.199.49

    work page doi:10.29119/1641-3466.2024.199.49 2024