- From: Lorrie Cranor <lorrie@research.att.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 15:04:18 -0400
- To: public-p3p-spec@w3.org
Mel Peterson from P&G prepared this summary of the focus groups the layered/highlights notices effort did last year. Some of their findings are relevant to our translation effort -- most notably, people don't like the word "data." Lorrie Layered Notices Focus Groups February 2002 Summary of Results Notices • All three groups like the idea of short notices, and disliked the notices they received as a result of GLB. • In general, long notices are generally ignored or pitched. They reduce trust because people assume companies are trying to hide important information that they don’t want the consumer to find. • ‘Uses’, especially information sharing practices, was the most important information. People wanted to know if their information would be sold or shared in a way that lead to them getting a lot of other marketing they do not want. • Other categories on the short notice were less important than ‘uses’, but all were still important. The six categories used by templates we tested seemed to cover all information people were most interested in. We did not identify additional categories that need to be added. • All three groups strongly prefer that short notices share the same template across all industries. • Some participants indicated use of short notices would facilitate comparing information practices between companies. • At this stage people need more explanation / sentences in a template. A shorter check-list template was not clear enough, but participants indicated that down the road they might be able to use a shorter check-list template once they have been educated. Categories & Words • Participants expected that the words used within the boxes may be different, since they believe companies have differences in how they collect and use information. But to the extent consistent wording can be used, that will make the notices even easier to use and understand. • Legal words arouse suspicion and mistrust. “When I read legal words I think you’re trying to trick me, to deceive me.” For example, ‘policy’ sounds legal, ‘statement’ is better. • Phrases like ‘we respect your privacy’ and ‘privacy promise’ led to derision – “I bet Enron had a great privacy policy”. • The word ‘data’ is not consumer friendly. “Data is what my child graphs in school.” ‘Personal Information’ was better than ‘data’. • There was not a strong consensus among the three groups for the ‘choice’ box. ‘Options’, ‘Choice’, ‘Preferences’ were all considered by participants, the groups differed on which they thought was best. • ‘Scope’ was not a meaningful descriptor of the box telling people about the company whose practices are described in the notice. • ‘Other Information’ does not work. It sound like ‘unimportant details’ and will be ignored. “Important information’ is better. • A few people expressed appreciation for data access when it was included in the template (in the “Other Information” box) but no one suggested it needed to have its own category. • One focus group talked a lot about third parties they could go to for accountability. “UL approved” was attractive, but recognition of seal programs was limited. • People had trouble with one-word descriptions of categories on the template, but once the category was explained to them the word used to describe the category becomes less important. Template • Presenting the information in a template, with boxes to organize the information, is better than presenting the information in text form. • Keeping the same template for all companies/organizations is highly desirable. It makes it easier for people to find the information they are looking for, and to compare practices when they want to. • ‘Contact Information’ should be located in the lower right hand corner or at the end of the template. • People would like to have ‘how-to’ information along with any choices they have, e.g. “to be removed from this program call 1-800-765-4321”. Other • Most people do not understand how data is used. They have no clue how information creates value for them. Some people have a limited understanding of targeting. Data modeling is not understood. Short notices for marketing are likely to generate “I never knew that was going on” responses. • Most participants like and use catalogs, but would cancel some of the volume they currently get. Volume of solicitations was the issue.
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 15:02:44 UTC