Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 25:10:e34855.
doi: 10.2196/34855.

Exploring the Use of Pictograms in Privacy Agreements to Facilitate Communication Between Users and Data Collecting Entities: Randomized Controlled Trial

Larissa Ugaya Mazza #  1 , Laura Xavier Fadrique #  1 , Amethyst Kuang #  1 , Tania Donovska  2 , Hélène Vaillancourt  3 , Jennifer Teague  2 , Victoria A Hailey  4 , Stephen Michell  5 , Plinio Pelegrini Morita  1   2   6   7
Affiliations

Exploring the Use of Pictograms in Privacy Agreements to Facilitate Communication Between Users and Data Collecting Entities: Randomized Controlled Trial

Larissa Ugaya Mazza et al. JMIR Hum Factors. .

Abstract

Background: Privacy agreements can foster trust between users and data collecting entities by reducing the fear of data sharing. Users typically identify concerns with their data privacy settings, but due to the complexity and length of privacy agreements, users opt to quickly consent and agree to the terms without fully understanding them.

Objective: This study explores the use of pictograms as potential elements to assist in improving the transparency and explanation of privacy agreements.

Methods: During the development of the pictograms, the Double Diamond design process was applied for 3 instances of user interactions and 3 iterations of pictograms. The testing was done by performing a comparative study between a control group, which received no pictograms, and an experimental group, which received pictograms. The pictograms were individually tested to assess their efficacy by using an estimated comprehension of information symbols test.

Results: A total of 57 participants were recruited for the pictogram evaluation phase. With the addition of pictograms, the overall understanding improved by 13% (P=.001), and the average time spent answering the questions decreased by 57.33 seconds. A 9% decrease in perceived user frustration was also reported by users, but the difference was not significant (χ24=4.80; P=.31). Additionally, none of the pictograms passed the estimated comprehension of information symbols test, with 7 being discarded immediately and 5 requiring further testing to assess their efficacy.

Conclusions: The addition of pictograms appeared to improve users' understanding of the privacy agreements, despite the pictograms needing further changes to be more understandable. This proves that with the aid of pictographic images, it is possible to make privacy agreements more accessible, thereby allowing trust and open communication to be fostered between users and data collecting entities.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05631210; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05631210.

Keywords: pictograms; privacy agreements; transparency; user trust.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Double Diamond design method.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Example of how the estimated comprehension of information symbols test was applied.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Concerns and knowledge about data privacy reported by participants.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Representations collected during the workshop to represent the concept of “is my location being collected?”
Figure 5
Figure 5
Final set of pictograms developed.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Relationship between privacy concerns and knowledge.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Relationship between privacy concerns and frustration (pictograms).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Martin K. Privacy notices as tabula rasa: An empirical investigation into how complying with a privacy notice is related to meeting privacy expectations online. J Public Policy Mark. 2015 Sep 01;34(2):210–227. doi: 10.1509/jppm.14.139. - DOI
    1. Wu KW, Huang SY, Yen DC, Popova I. The effect of online privacy policy on consumer privacy concern and trust. Comput Human Behav. 2012 May;28(3):889–897. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.008. - DOI
    1. Protecting consumer privacy in an era of rapid change: A proposed framework for businesses and policymakers. Federal Trade Commission. 2010. Dec, [2022-07-28]. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-... .
    1. Obar JA, Oeldorf-Hirsch A. The biggest lie on the internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services. Inf Commun Soc. 2018 Jul 03;23(1):128–147. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2018.1486870. - DOI
    1. Korenevsky A, Vaillancourt R, Pouliot A, Revol M, Steed E, Besançon L, Wahrendorf MS, Patel JR. How many words does a picture really tell? Cross-sectional descriptive study of pictogram evaluation by youth. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2013 Jul;66(4):219–226. doi: 10.4212/cjhp.v66i4.1269. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/23950605 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Associated data