Yeah, I’ve spent a lot of time staring at the edge where a nudge turns into a shove. In my mind the line is blurry, but the first sign I look for is intent versus effect. If the tweak is meant to help the user reach a goal they’ve already identified, it’s a guide. If it steers them toward a choice they wouldn’t otherwise make—especially one that limits future options or benefits the designer more than the user—that’s where the ethical gray zone begins. The trick is to build the interface so the user sees the path as their own decision, not a hidden lever. Transparent feedback, optionality, and an “undo” button can keep the balance. I keep a checklist: Does the user still feel in control? Does the change expose them to new choices or just funnel them? If the answer is “yes” to both, I call it a good design. If not, I pull the lever back. The line’s not fixed, but the question itself keeps me honest.

Yeah, the “undo” button is a double‑edged sword. People will always look for the hidden lever, and designers can’t just lock it in place forever. It’s a cat‑and‑mouse game—one new feature, and the next user learns a new way to outwit the constraints. The trick is to stay one step ahead, but I’m also convinced that the real win is when the design feels so intuitive that people never feel tricked in the first place. That’s the moving target I’m chasing.