Sky News, a channel on Foxtel Digital here in Aus, has an Active mode where one can select different news feeds to watch (weather, sports, politics etc). They have also added recently a poll feature where viewers can voice their opinion on whatever topic the producers feel is worthy of polling. Here is the procedure to vote in a poll:
1) Press RED button on remote
2) Press one of four colour buttons (including the RED button, which corresponds to the first item in the poll) to indicate your vote.
3) Get a message saying it will cost you 55c to vote.
4) To continue: you press the RED button.
Now, can we all see the inherent flaw in this system? From a user interface perspective, when a user is confronted with the SUDDEN realisation they are going to have to pay for their vote, they will want to opt out. The LOGICAL button to press to go back is the RED button as it is the button that got them into the active mode in the first place. Also, the RED button is a BACK button in other active channels, eg Fox Sports.
Thus, the number of votes for the RED item (always the first item in the list) is going to be un-naturally biased, as people incorrectly press the RED button, desperately trying to avoid paying for a meaningless vote.
Surely the producers of Sky News Active have realised this? Surely, they are surprised that EVERY vote they have had on the show has had the first (RED) item register votes of 60%+? Every time. I have seen 4 polls now, and they are all skewed towards the first item. i can accept that the producers may simply not realise what is going on, that their knowledge of user interface issues is non-existant. However, I question why the poll items are not randomised per person, and why it is only once you attempt to register your vote that you are informed of its cost. The former looks to me like they WANT to be able to sway the vote to the first item and the latter shows me they WANT to dupe people into not realising they are paying. If either is true, it's disgusting.
I feel an email to media watch is in order.
No comments:
Post a Comment