I agree.. and then there is the issue of how to apply each state (the 2-4 states that each button can have) and who applies it.
The individual will have no idea how to apply the meaning of the icons, how to know when an icon is reliable because some entity? a third party? will evaluate the site for application of the icon, and the user is still left with the same problem, in the current version of these icons: they have no way to anticipate how their data will be used over time.
The icons aren't a rating of how a site is doing with some aspect of personal data. They are a statement of what will happen. But that leaves users having to anticipate the effects.. which they cannot do.
The equivalent is: right now, tell me how you are going to use all your money for the rest of your life.. all decided right now.
You can't do it.. and that's because anticipating how money or data will be used, far into the future, and what the effects will be, is impossible.
Privacy Icons are viable.. but in my view, not done this way. On Jun 23, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Mitch Ratcliffe wrote: Too much cognitive loading required. That is a lot of icons for some simple concepts (albeit not so simple). 10 different policy types will morph into hybrids, and then it will be difficult to understand combinations of icons. The use of color as a second dimension of risk information is potentially useful, but it looks like I need to understand two to four states of each icon to get the information I need. I don’t see the reason for including in a forward-looking icon set a Heartbleed-specific icon. Why not an icon that indicates Repeated History of Technical Vulnerability? Well intended, not there yet. Best, Mitch From: Doc Searls [mailto:
]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 4:58 PM
To: ProjectVRM list
Subject: [projectvrm] Disconnect's privacy icons
|