I don't understand how the elevator story is an example of a dark pattern. I see that the sign did not effectively accomplish its goal, but that doesn't fit the definition given: the intent to trick users into doing something undesirable.
I assume the janitor sign worked because people subconsciously will ignore things that have the appearance of being permanent while operating in the context of something familiar... the janitor sign appearance implied a recent and temporary change.
Conversely if the person has never been to that building/elevator before they would probably be equally likely to notice either sign.
The longer note looked like a notice, which people tend to ignore — particularly if they're in a rush or frustrated.
The only thing missing is the intention, which isn’t even specified in the story, so I think we lack the necessary information to say for sure.
For example, let’s say a graphics designer were asked by their boss to make a sign to inform visitors that the elevator was broken. Then, let’s say the graphics designer discovered the company was holding interviews that day for new graphics designers who would replace them. If the sign were made as such to make those applicants late for their interview, we would be looking at a case of a dark pattern. If it were made as decoration, we wouldn’t be.
From there, intuition of how users interact with UX builds.
The author is relating a personal story that illustrates the building of interactive components, the process of understanding users, and the differing motivations behind design.
The elevator story is not an example of a dark pattern, but it illustrates the problem that comes with developing an awareness of how people think and interact with an interface. People can't have hyperfocus all the time, see through all intentions, be all knowing and all aware of every circumstance and event. Sometimes people are on autopilot, sometimes people take advantage of that.
A lot of digital services today continue to be developed with this aesthetic in mind.
It’s confusing, because he literally says it’s a dark pattern. But it was really just better design for that particular problem.
It's like saying effective contrast is a dark pattern.
The long sentence likely would not have been ignored if it covered the elevator buttons, forcing you to recognize that the buttons are no longer visible where you expected them to be.
Temporary signage that fits into the environment will appear permanent, and thereby ignored by the public.
This is why graphic designers use the terms like "effective" rather than aesthetic terminology to describe their work. Sometimes ugly designs are the most effective.