Journey guide · 19 related patterns
Pricing review starts before checkout. Search cards, campaign landing pages, recommendation logic, comparison tables and membership offers can each shape the price a person understands. Teams should reconstruct the comparable payable amount, the basis of every saving or popularity claim and the information available when a product first becomes a realistic option.
The patterns below are review prompts, not automatic findings. A useful journey review keeps ordinary persuasive design, usability problems, current legal tests and possible future DFA policy separate while preserving the evidence needed to examine each question.
Review the complete sequence
Capture the state before a material choice, the controls and information available at that choice, the immediate result and any later account or billing consequence. This prevents a clear-looking screen from being assessed without the steps that give it practical effect.
Pattern directory
Journey tags identify where a mechanism may be observable; they do not mean it appears in every product or only at that stage. Follow the detail links for two concrete comparisons, boundary cases, legal context and evidence questions.
Claims about recent or current actions by other users are used to steer the decision, particularly where authenticity, timing or relevance is unsupported. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Activity messagesContent continues automatically or lacks meaningful stopping cues, reducing deliberate control over time and attention. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Automatic attention captureDistinct products, services, permissions or purposes are grouped under one choice so the user cannot readily understand or select them separately. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Bundled optionsThe volume or organisation of options or information makes meaningful comparison impractical and channels users toward a default or business-favoured path. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Choice or information overloadInformation needed to compare products, plans or consequences is presented in inconsistent, fragmented or unusable form. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Comparison preventionA visible countdown applies time pressure, particularly where it resets, is personalised without disclosure or has no corresponding consequence at zero. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Countdown timerAccess to support needed to resolve a purchase, account, charge or right is hidden or burdened by unnecessary loops and dead ends. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Customer-support obstructionA promotional or biased action is presented as ordinary content or as a different control, causing interaction under a mistaken understanding. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Disguised advertisement or actionA mandatory or foreseeable charge is omitted, obscured or revealed only after the user has invested effort in the transaction. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Drip pricing and hidden chargesParallel options are presented as if one were hierarchically primary, giving a business-favoured option materially greater visual or interactive prominence. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: False hierarchyAccess or progression is conditioned on disclosing personal information that appears unnecessary, excessive or used for an insufficiently explained secondary purpose. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Forced disclosure or excessive data requestThe user must create an account, or is led to believe one is required, to complete a goal that could plausibly be provided without it. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Forced registrationInformation relevant to the decision is absent or presented so ineffectively that it is unlikely to inform the user at the decision point. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Hidden informationA claim of unusually high current demand is used to accelerate a decision without a clear or supportable basis. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: High-demand claimA textual deadline or temporary-reservation claim pressures action, particularly where the deadline renews or its stated consequence does not occur. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Limited-time or reservation claimA claim that few units remain applies purchase pressure, especially where inventory basis or persistence is unsupported. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Low-stock claimA comparison or prior price creates an inaccurate or insufficiently explained impression of savings. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Misleading reference pricingAggregate popularity or approval is presented to steer a choice where the metric, population, period or basis is unclear or unsupported. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Popularity claimsA named or attributed person's approval is used persuasively without sufficient authenticity, representativeness or relationship disclosure. The label describes a recurring design mechanism; whether a particular implementation is harmful or unlawful depends on the complete journey, audience, evidence and rules within scope.
2 visual examples
See examples in context: Testimonials or endorsementsEvidence base