I asked a relative to look for RealVNC on the Play Store and install it. Once they were done, I asked them to fulfill a basic task inside RealVNC and they were really confused by my instructions. I took a look at their phone, lo and behold, they had installed a different app. I asked them to repeat the install procedure while I watched. They punched in “realvnc” in the search box, two identically formatted results appeared. Their finger instinctively clicked the Install button on the top result. It was an ad. 🤦♂️🤦♀️🤦
Removing the Install button from the ad would eliminate this issue in most cases. There, I fixed stupid. I’ve done UX btw, some of it on Android.
deleted by creator
I aimed to make it more difficult to install the advertised app by accident, which was the original problem. You seem to agree that my design change would achieve that. 😂
deleted by creator
Everyone here knows everything you said. I’m merely providing a current example of where things are today and I’m making a moral judgement that this design has become too counterproductive for the user. Not sure if you stand on the other side of this and if you do, that’s fine. You may have your reasons to support Alphabet’s corporate interest. I don’t in this case. Therefore I feel it’s justified to make things less productive for Alphabet. You suggested nothing can be done other than removing the ad altogether. I suggested a way to solve the issue I highlighted without removing the ad.
deleted by creator
Assume it’s not disingenuous. Instead picture observing a user confusing the two and draw a conclusion other than they’re an idiot. But you already said you understand this design makes users more likely to click on the ad. Do I have to explain the common elements of the layouts in a wireframe? Do I have to go into the differences in noticeability between more and less prominent design language elements in order to explain in what way they’re identical? Come on, cut some slack and assume better.