Page 78 - DP-2-2

Design+ Meaningful digital consent: A VSD study

lead to key details being omitted or overlooked. Some Participants appreciated the accessible language, intuitive
participants questioned its transparency, suggesting the navigation through the sidebar, and visual elements, such
format should include easily accessible definitions or as icons and bold text, which improved readability. One
explanations for users seeking more information. participant noted, “This approach combines visuals and
I’d prefer if they explained more why they need certain text in a way that makes it easy to digest” (Interviewee 7).
data types instead of just listing them. (Interviewee 8)
However, some found the whitespace and icons
This format feels a bit like it’s trying to gloss over inefficient, requiring excessive scrolling to access
important details. (Interviewee 9) information. The use of videos drew divided opinions.
Strava’s notice, combining an FAQ (frequently asked While some participants appreciated the effort to meet
questions) and nutritional label approach, received users where they’re at, most felt videos were inefficient and
praise for balancing simplicity and depth. Participants less practical than reading:
appreciated the clear, upfront answers and clickable links I personally wouldn’t watch the video. I don’t have
for more details, with one participant stating, “The yes/no the patience to sit through it and wait for them to
answers make it quick to understand and the detailed links explain something I could probably find faster by just
are there for those who care” (Interviewee 18). reading. If they’re going to include videos, they need
This format allowed users to grasp essential information to make sure they’re very short – like under a minute –
quickly while offering transparency for those seeking otherwise, people will just skip them. (Interviewee 12)
deeper insights. However, some participants raised 4.3.1. Value tensions
concerns that the simplicity of yes/no responses might
deter users from exploring critical details, such as data- This technical investigation revealed key value tensions
sharing practices. Some also felt that there was too much reflecting challenges in balancing transparency, user
volume of information at once. engagement, and accessibility. These tensions are related
It’s nice that they make it simple, but it ends up raising to the OPC guidelines emphasizing key information,
more questions than it answers. I want more detail control of detail, innovative approaches, and consumer
upfront, not hidden under another click. (Interviewee 19) perspectives.
It’s easy, but it’s almost too easy that it becomes The most prominent tension was between transparency
overwhelming. There are so many colors, links, and (honesty) and simplicity (helpfulness). Participants
options that I just feel like there’s too much going on. appreciated clear, concise summaries and emphasized key
I don’t know where to start. (Interviewee 21) points, but oversimplified information was criticized for
The Twitter/X FAQ format was generally well-received being vague.
for its approachable tone and conversational language, I love how quick it is to understand, but I’m not sure
which made the information feel more accessible and if I’m missing something important by not reading
less intimidating. Features, such as large subheadings, everything. (Interviewee 4)
clickable links, and relatable phrasing, such as “Seriously, It’s too simplified. I’m worried they’re glossing over
what happens with my data?” appealed to some users. important stuff. (Interviewee 15)
One participant noted that the lighthearted tone “sort of Similarly, there was a trade-off between
humanizes a big organization” (Interviewee 8). However, comprehensiveness (honesty) and cognitive load
many participants criticized the tone as unnecessary or (helpfulness), where providing detailed information
disingenuous, with summaries being overly vague and could overwhelm users. While Strava’s notice was praised
lacking meaningful insights. As one participant remarked, for letting users control how much they read, it was also
“Of course, ‘you give some data, we get some data’; like, it criticized as overwhelming and difficult to navigate.
doesn’t teach me anything” (Interviewee 22). I appreciate the effort to simplify it, but when there’s so
There was also broad agreement that this format is much text and so many clickable sections, it gets a little
unsuitable for certain contexts, particularly in industries exhausting to figure out where to focus. (Interviewee 12)
like healthcare. One participant shared, “If I went to the Participants discussed alternatives, such as using
[redacted] Hospital page and I saw this, I’d be like, I don’t dropdowns or hover-over text for key details but expressed
think I’m gonna go to the [redacted] Hospital actually” concern about usability.
(Interviewee 14). If you had to click on it, and it opened up a new tab or
Google’s approach, featuring icons, bold subheadings, link or it rearranged the format of the whole page, it
videos, and ample whitespace, received mixed feedback. might be a little bit weird. (Interviewee 5)

Volume 2 Issue 2 (2025) 7 doi: 10.36922/dp.8158