Of *course* people don't read the T&Cs. They're too long and convoluted. I sometimes think that's just how the lawyers like it. ;-)
A nice solution is: 1. A scrollable text field (or link to a T&C page/box) that you can skip if you're so inclined. The legal responsibility for that is yours, just as you can sign a contract without reading it if you want to, but your agreement is still binding. 2. Bold headings through the text that summarise each major point underneath, so at least users can know which things to read carefully. For instance, a heading "You have 100 free uses of each image, after which you have to pay" would cover the situation someone mentioned earlier. Users eyes would catch the heading as they scroll and they'd know to read this somewhat unexpected clause. The fact that the heading is merely a heading, and not a stand alone plain English summary, makes most lawyers feel much more comfortable. It's a pointer to what to read, not a translation. 3. Anything unusual (and I think the pay after 100 uses situation definitely counts) should be highlighted *outside* of the terms and conditions box as well in the main area of the page, so that users who always skip T&C sections have a fighting chance of seeing it. And of course you can try getting the legal team to write English. It can be done so that it's both legally correct and understandable (see the Plain English movement, which has been around for over a decade. For instance, our automotive association in Australia, NRMA, has all its documents in plain English, including its insurance documents, and their world did not collapse. Check this out as a typical example, in particular the "what's covered" section, which many insurance companies make utterly incomprehensible: http://www.nrma.com.au/documents/policy-booklets/home-policy.pdf This is the book many people in Australia reference, but it's currently out of print. I'm sure it's available somewhere though. http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Plain-English-Robert-Eagleson/dp/064406848 5/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225258245&sr=1-1 And there's also this, which is in print, but I haven't read it so can't comments on its quality: http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Writing-Plain-English-Publishing/dp/02262841 74/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225258245&sr=1-3 Cheers Alinta Thornton User Experience Lead independent digital media web publishing | marketing+technology services | publisher solutions Westside, Level 2 Suite C, 83 O'Riordan Street, Alexandria NSW Australia 2015 PO Box 7160, Alexandria, NSW 2015 W www.idmco.com.au B http://eezia.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chauncey Wilson Sent: Tuesday, 28 October 2008 4:23 AM To: Eva Kaniasty Cc: IxDA Discuss Subject: Re: [IxDA Discuss] Terms and Conditions with a twist The underlying issue here is how legal forms are evaluated. We can evaluate whether people understand the terms, but that is not the same as the evaluation that goes on in court. So, apart from all the opinion about reading comprehension, is there any empirical data on the efficacy of simplified legal forms over more complex legal forms. I see an assumption in these discussion that "no one reads the T&Cs", so is it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the details. Perhaps there are many good T&C's but we rarely look at them so we are biased toward only the worst examples. Chauncey On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eva Kaniasty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perfect timing for this discussion. I get to copy & paste my thoughts > from > another list. :) > > I think this is an interesting area for us usability folks to talk about. > Does legalese really have to be written in a style that is inaccessible to > 99% of the population? > I would argue that there is a way to express even the most complex legal > ideas in language that can be understood by the rest of us. > > I also think that the tradition of the 6 page terms & conditions is often a > subterfuge used to slip in terms that users would never agree to if those > same terms were put forth in a briefer/clearer form. Legalese is a way to > pay lip service to transparency while hiding behind an implementation that > is anything but. To me, the very importance of legal considerations > argues > for making those considerations clear to those who are unwittingly entering > into legal agreements by using websites or software. Some recent examples > that come to mind are sites whose user agreements conveniently hand over > rights to any user-generated content to themselves. > > Has anybody seen examples of sites that manage to cover themselves legally > while using language that is clear and transparent? I have seen some > examples on newer websites, but now for the life of me I can't remember > where. > > -eva > ________________________________________________________________ > Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! > To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe > List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines > List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help > ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
