Phrase for the opposite of "foolproof"

Question

Is there a concise way to describe something that is poorly designed, such that users are likely to accidentally make errors when using it? I'm looking for pretty much an exact antonym for "foolproof".

As an example, suppose there's a UI for job management that allows jobs to be canceled. When the "Cancel" button is clicked, a dialog appears saying "Canceling will lose job progress. Do you want to let the job finish? [Yes] / [No]" Clicking "No" will actually abort the job. The UI is working as designed, but since many users will not read the full message and assume that the opposite question is being asked, they are likely to use it incorrectly and mistakenly choose the wrong option. The UI itself works as intended and is not directly failing or causing the error, but its design is causing others to make mistakes.

I'd like a concise yet generalizable way to say, "This UI is [likely to be the cause of frequent user error]." So far the best word that I have is "confusing" but I'd like something stronger and more specific.

"Error-prone" is close, but I feel like that more strongly means "liable to make mistakes" instead of "cause mistakes to be made."

I'm not satisfied with the following words, because they suggest a defect of implementation (that it can fail even if used "correctly") and don't sufficiently convey an error-causing design: "defective", "faulty", "flawed", "imperfect", "undependable", "unreliable", "fallible"

I would also like to avoid direct or implicit criticism of the creator, so I don't want to say "poorly designed."

Answer 1

This UI is:
- Nonobvious = Not easily discovered, seen, or understood
- Unclear = not clear
- Counterintuitive = contrary to what one would intuitively expect
- Illogical = not observing the principles of logic

It is difficult to correct someone without risking direct or implicit criticism.

Answer 2

foolprone

something or someone that is at high risk of foolish actions or ideas being brought upon them and cannot become rid of such actions or ideas, no matter the nature of foolishness; antonym of foolproof.

(courtesy of https://definithing.com/foolprone/ & https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foolprone)

Arguably, it's a made-up word, but it does exist in the wild, and it nice enough as far as neologisms go IMVHO.

Answer 3

Misleading

Giving the wrong idea or impression - OOD

A confirmation pop-up is expected to ask if the user wants to continue. When it asks the negation of what is expected many people can be expected to answer incorrectly.

Answer 4

Probably not very common outside of programming circles, but a "footgun" is something which makes it very easy for the user to shoot themselves in the foot. It is fairly negative towards the feature, but other than that it doesn't criticize the creator (as far as I'm aware).

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/footgun :

(programming slang, humorous, derogatory) Any feature whose addition to a product results in the user shooting themselves in the foot.

Answer 5

I read the title of the question and immediately thought of error prone—before reading the rest of the question. I personally don't think there is a better phrase than that. It's open to interpretation and context what the reason is behind the possible errors.

---

Having said that, another possible word is fallible:

1 : liable to be erroneous
// a fallible generalization
2 : capable of making a mistake
// we're all fallible

In short:

The UI is fallible.

Answer 6

error-inducing

Let’s stop putting the blame in the wrong place. Interfaces should be designed to help humans achieve their goals, but also to avoid doing stupid things. Alan Cooper refers to “error-inducing design”, which is design that basically encourages error because it fails to consider human limitations (by Antony Adelaar).

(Quote refers to Alan Cooper, the American software designer.)

In this case, presumption would be a human limitation. I would presume (ODO) that a confirmation dialog box would have this basic setup: Perform requested action? [yes/confirm] [no/cancel]. But if I clicked on abort job by accident, ignored the dialog (based on my presumption), and clicked no, that would perform the action (i.e., abort the job), which could be a destructive action. Or so I presume, based on a likely purpose of confirmation dialog boxes--preventing, as possible, "unintended havoc" (Designing Confirmation by Andrew Coyle).

Answer 7

I tend to use the word "magnet" a lot. When I'm driving, I'm an idiot magnet. When I'm at a party, I seem to be a bore magnet. StackExchange is a nerd magnet.

This UI would be an error magnet.

I suppose "vortex" or "black hole" or "sucker" could replace "magnet." This UI is a black hole of bad clicks. This UI actively hunts down and sucks in errors.

Answer 8

This UI is:

1. not user-friendly (specific)
2. overly complex
3. unintuitive
4. dangerous (general)

As a side note: You mentioned you wanted to avoid criticism of the creator, but be aware the word you're asking for will be a word of opinion. In most cases, qualifiers can be used to fine-tune the intent of your word choice. Depending on the style and perspective of the writing, you may be able to use words of emotion to get more control of the overall message you are trying to convey.

Consider the change of intent as you read:

• This UI is unintuitive. (declarative)
• This UI may be unintuitive. (suggestive)
• This UI may be unintuitive to new users. (informative)
• I feel that this UI may be unintuitive. (personal, suggestive)
• I feel that this UI may be unintuitive to new users. (personal, informative)

Answer 9

inherently flawed

Inherent literally refers to something that is "stuck in" something else so firmly that they can't be separated. A plan may have an inherent flaw that will cause it to fail; a person may have inherent virtues that everyone admires. Since the flaw and the virtues can't be removed, the plan may simply have to be thrown out and the person will remain virtuous forever.

-Merriam Webster

So if the UI is inherently flawed it refers to the design and not the designer.

Answer 10

A foolproof system is robust, in this context an antonym is brittle
Wikipedia: Principle of least astonishment "a system should behave in a way that most users will expect it to behave"

My description for the OP's situation is: The UI provokes mistakes

Even stronger words are "hazardous" or "It's a trap"

Answer 11

'Flawed' is strict opposite of foolproof, and would be the word used in the arena of safety critical software design for a confusing human-machine interface.

Strictly a 'flaw' becomes a 'fault' when the system state reaches it, and a 'failure' when the consequences of the fault are not managed by the system.

Correctly implementing the wrong behaviour is still a flaw.

Answer 12

Could you be looking for mine-field?

Cambridge defines it as a situation or subject that is very complicated and full of hidden problems and dangers:

The UI is a minefield of mistakes for the users

Answer 13

In the case of that dialog I'd say "badly worded".

"Let the job finish" could mean two opposite things - allow it to be killed (finish prematurely, right now) or allow it to run to its normal conclusion.

Clearly, if "No" aborts, then the designer was thinking of the second one. Hmm, I think. You've got me at it now!

If he'd used "continue" instead it would be unambiguous. Non-native speaker, perhaps?

Answer 14

flawed

▶ adjective INFALLIBLE, dependable, reliable, trustworthy, certain, sure, guaranteed, safe, sound, tried and tested; watertight, airtight, flawless, perfect; informal sure-fire; formal efficacious. Opposites: flawed.

— Concise Oxford Thesaurus 2nd Ed.

The UI allows for [many or easily made] mistakes (i.e. error-prone) but at the same time this is not due to the designer. It seems like you want to write a politically correct sentence.

Try,

1. The UI is coincidentally (error prone / flawed).

2. The UI is unintentionally (error prone / flawed).

Answer 15

Looking for a phrase that is concise, strong, and avoids implying criticism of the creator is a little tricky, since the more concise and strong you get, the more likely it is to sound like harsh criticism. And it's hard to find a way to soften it without being less concise or less strong and specific.

That being said, my best attempt at a fusion of the three:

• This UI is easy to misuse (misuse, verb)
• This UI is prone to misuse (misuse, noun)

These are specific (emphasize the fact that users will not only be confused, but will likely make errors) and non-critical (state the problem plainly, "misuse" indicates that it works when used correctly -- with the caveat that there's no way to phrase this without implying that the design has room for improvement).

Answer 16

I'm not quite sure it fits the sense you're using it in here, but along the lines of the comment by jberryman, and answers by KannE and Bobby-J: we also apply terms like antipattern (Wikipedia) and dark pattern (Wikipedia) to situations like this.

antipattern A design pattern that may be commonly used, but is ineffective or counterproductive in practice. (Wiktionary)

dark pattern: A user interface that is intentionally designed to trick users into doing things, such as giving up more information, or agreeing to unfavourable terms. (Wiktionary)

This UI is (or employs) an anti-pattern because it inverts the logical action of the affirmative buttons.

To close the loop, asking the user to confirm the destructive action is, by itself, just a pattern for helping the user avoid accidental destructive actions.

Answer 17

I just made up this phrase off the top of my head, but how about failbait?

"This UI is [likely to be the cause of frequent user error]."
"This UI is failbait."