Consent for all: Revealing the hidden complexity of terms and conditions

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 2687-2696

  Luger, Ewa ^a   Moran, Stuart ^a   Rodden, Tom ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consent; Energy; Literacy; Readability; SMOG; Usability

Indexed keywords

CONSENT; ENERGY; LITERACY; READABILITY; SMOG; USABILITY;

AIR POLLUTION; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; HUMAN ENGINEERING; SMOKE; UNDERPINNINGS;

WEBSITES;

EID: 84877954563     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2470654.2481371     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (37)

1. Bailin, A., and Grafstein, A. The linguistic Assumptions Underlying Readability Formulae: A Critique. Language and Communication 21, 3 (2001), 285-301
2. Bakos, Y. Marotta-Wurgler, F. Trossen, D. R. Does Anyone Read the Fine Print? Testing a Law and Economics Approach to Standard Form Contracts, New York University Law and Economics Working Paper 195 (2009)
3. Becta. Extending opportunity: final report of the minister's taskforce on home access to technology. Becta (2008)
4. Bernstam, E. V., Shelton, D. M., Walji M., and Meric-Bernstam, F. Instruments to Assess the Quality of Health Information on the World Wide Web: What can our Patients Actually Use? Int. J. Med. Inf. 74, 1 (2005), 13-19
5. Breese, P., and Burman, W. Readability of Notice of Privacy Forms used by Major Health Care Institutions. JAMA, 293. 13 (2005), 1593-1592
6. Data Protection Commissioner. EU Directive 95/46/EC -The Data Protection Directive: Article 2 definitions http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID= 92
7. DIUS. World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England. TSO, 2007
8. DuBay, W. H. The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information, 2004
9. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., Sa, E. Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web: A Systematic Review. JAMA, 287 (2002), 2691-2700
10. Flory, J., and Emanuel, E. Interventions to improve Research Participants' Understanding in Informed Consent for Research: A Systematic Review. JAMA, 292. 13 (2004), 1593-1601
11. Friedman, D. B., and Hoffman-Goetz, L. A Systematic Review of Readability and Comprehension Instruments Used for Print and Web-Based Cancer Information. Health Educ. Behav. 33, 3 (2006), 352-373
12. Harding, C., Romanou E., Williams, J., Peters M., Winkley, J., Burke, P., Hamer, J., Jeram, K., Nelson, N., Rainbow, B., Bond B., and Shay M. 2011 Skills for Life Survey: Headline findings, BIS Research Paper No. 57, Crown Copyright, 2011
13. Harrison, C. Readability in the Classroom. Cambridge University Press, 1980
14. Helsper, E. Digital Inclusion: An Analysis of Social Disadvantage and the Information Society: Executive Summary. CLG (2008
15. Hillman, R. A., On-Line Consumer Standard-Form Contracting Practices: A Survey and Discussion of Legal Implications, Cornell Law Faculty Publications, Paper 29 (2005)
16. Horner, S. D., Surratt D., and Juliusson, S. Improving readability of Patient Education materials. J Community Health Nurs. 17, 1 (2000), 15-23
17. Information Commissioner's Office. Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations: Guidance on the rules on use of cookies and similar technologies. ICO (2012)
18. Information Commissioners Office. Privacy Notices Code of Practice. ICO (2010)
19. Jensen, C., and Potts, C. Privacy Policies as Decision-Making Tools: An Evaluation of Online Privacy Notices. Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 471-478
20. Kaul, I., Grunberg, I., Stern, M. A., Global Public Goods: International Cooperation for the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, 1999
21. Kay, M., and Terry, M. Textured Agreements; Re-envisioning Electronic Consent, Proc. SOUPS. Article 13 (2010)
22. Manson, N & O'Neill, O. Rethinking Informed Consent in Bioethics. Cambridge University Press, 2007
23. McLaughlin, G. H. SMOG Grading; A New Readability Formula. Journal of Reading, 12. 8 (1969), 639-646.
24. National Literacy Trust. How can I assess the readability of my document or write more clearly? http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/about/faqs/710-how-can-i- assess-the-readability-of-my-document-or-write-more-clearly
25. NIACE. Readability: How to produce clear written materials for a range of readers, 2009
26. Ofgem Press Release. Ofgem Sets Out Road Map to Open up Electricity Market for Independent Suppliers (2012) http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/PressRel/ Documents1/liquidity%20feb%202012.pdf
27. Ofgem. Industry Governance. http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Licensing/Work/Pages/ licence-conditions-consolidated.aspx
28. O. O'Neill, Some limits of informed consent, J Med Ethics, 29 (2003), 4-7
29. Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor H. A., and Brancati. F. L. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England journal of medicine, 248, 8 (2003), 721-727
30. Parris, R., Online T&Cs longer than Shakespeare plays - who reads them? Which, (2012)
31. Perlow, E. Accessibility: Global Gateway to Health Literacy. Health Promot Pract, 11 (2010), 123-131
32. Price, S., The Complete A-Z Media and Communication Handbook. Hodder & Stoughton, 1997
33. Skills funding Agency. Skills for Life. http://skillsfundingagency.bis. gov.uk/providers/programmes/skillsforlife/
34. Thornhill, T. Google will know more about you than your partner': Uproar as search giant reveals privacy policy that will allow them to track you on all their products. Mail Online. (2012)
35. UNESCO. EFA Global Monitoring Report; Education for all by 2015 - will we make it? Oxford University Press, (2007)
36. Walsh, T., and Volsko, T. A., Readability Assessment of Internet-Based Consumer Health Information, Respiratory Care, 53. 10 (2008), 1310-1315
37. WC3 Web accessibility initiative. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php