Volume 26, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0142-5471
  • E-ISSN: 1569-979X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



An online survey ( = 810) examined the impact of design best practices on the perceived usability of End-User License Agreements (EULAs). Redesigning a EULA according to best-practices (without changing the EULA’s terms and conditions) led to higher perceived usability while responses to attitudinal (perceived reasonableness of conditions) and behavioral (anticipated agreement and use) items were unaffected. (who reported reading EULAs frequently) (a) provided more positive evaluations of EULAs and (b) were more likely to anticipate agreeing to EULA terms than . These results suggest that best practices in document design can improve the usability of End-User License Agreements.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aaker, D. A.
    (2004) Leveraging the corporate brand. California management review, 46(3), 6–18. 10.1177/000812560404600301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000812560404600301 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albrecht, J. P.
    (2016) How the GDPR Will Change the World. European Data Protection Law Review, 2(3), 287–289. 10.21552/EDPL/2016/3/4
    https://doi.org/10.21552/EDPL/2016/3/4 [Google Scholar]
  3. AOL and National Cyber Security Alliance
    AOL and National Cyber Security Alliance 2004 AOL/NCSA online safety study, (October). www.security.iia.net.au/downloads/safety_study_v04.pdf
  4. Bakos, Y., Marotta-Wurgler, F., & Trossen, D. R.
    (2014) Does anyone read the fine print? Consumer attention to standard-form contracts. The Journal of Legal Studies, 43(1), 1–35. 10.1086/674424
    https://doi.org/10.1086/674424 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ben-bassat, T., Ben-bassat, T., Meyer, J., & Tractinsky, N.
    (2006) Economic and subjective measures of the perceived value of aesthetics and usability Economic and Subjective Measures of the Perceived Value of Aesthetics and Usability. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 13(2), 210–234. 10.1145/1165734.1165737
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1165734.1165737 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ben-Shahar, O., & Porat, A.
    (2008) Fault in American Contract Law. Mich. L. Rev., 107, 1341.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Böhme, R., & Köpsell, S.
    (2010, April). Trained to accept?: a field experiment on consent dialogs. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp.2403–2406). ACM. 10.1145/1753326.1753689
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753689 [Google Scholar]
  8. Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., Friedell, G. H., & Meade, C. D.
    (1998) Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 48(3), 151–162. 10.3322/canjclin.48.3.151
    https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.48.3.151 [Google Scholar]
  9. Earthlink
    Earthlink 2005 Earthlink spy audit: Results complied from Webroot’s and Earthlink’s Spy Audit programs, www.earthlink.net/spyaudit/press
  10. Eggleston, K., Posner, E. A., & Zeckhauser, R.
    (2000) The design and interpretation of contracts: why complexity matters. Nw. UL Rev., 95, 91.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. European Commission
    European Commission (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Official Journal of the European Union. https://gdpr-info.eu/
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Free Software Foundation
    Free Software Foundation (1991) GNU General Public License (Version 2, June 1991). https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html#SEC3
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gerding, E. F.
    (2013) Contract as Pattern Language. Washington Law Review, 88(4), 1323–1356. ssrn.com/abstract=2371097
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gomulkiewicz, R. W.
    (2003) Getting serious about user-friendly mass market licensing for Software. George Mason Law Review, 12, 687.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Good, N., Dhamija, R., Grossklags, J., Thaw, D., Aronowitz, S., Mulligan, D., and Konstan, J.
    (2005) Stopping spyware at the gate: a user study of privacy, notice and spyware. InProceedings of the 2005 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 06 – 08, 2005). SOUPS ’05, vol.93. ACM Press, New York, NY, 43–52. 10.1145/1073001.1073006
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1073001.1073006 [Google Scholar]
  16. Good, N. S., Grossklags, J., Mulligan, D. K., & Konstan, J. A.
    (2007, April). Noticing notice: a large-scale experiment on the timing of software license agreements. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp.607–616). ACM. 10.1145/1240624.1240720
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240720 [Google Scholar]
  17. Google
    Google (2020) Privacy & Terms. RetrievedMarch 16, 2020fromhttps://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en-US
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grossklags, J., & Good, N.
    (2007, February). Empirical studies on software notices to inform policy makers and usability designers. InInternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (pp.341–355). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978‑3‑540‑77366‑5_31
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77366-5_31 [Google Scholar]
  19. Guo, D., Zhang, S., Wright, K. L., & McTigue, E. M.
    (2020) Do You Get the Picture? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Graphics on Reading Comprehension. AERA Open, 6(1), 233285842090169. 10.1177/2332858420901696
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420901696 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haapio, H., & Hagan, M.
    (2016) Design Patterns for Contracts. InSchweighofer (Ed.), 19th International Legal Informatics Symposium (IRIS 2016) (pp.381–388). Vienna, Austria: Österreichische Computer Gesellschaft OCG, pp.381–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haapio, H., Hagan, M., Palmirani, M., & Rossi, A.
    (2018) Legal design patterns for privacy. 21st International Legal Informatics Symposium IRIS 2018, 1–6. https://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/37453
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hagan, M.
    (2016) The User Experience of the Internet as a Legal Help Service: Defining Standards for the Next Generation of User-Friendly Online Legal Services. Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, 20(2), 394–465.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hojjati, N., & Muniandy, B.
    (2014) The effects of font type and spacing of text for online readability and performance. Contemporary Educational Technology, 5(2), 161–174. 10.30935/cedtech/6122
    https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6122 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jandreau, S., & Bever, T. G.
    (1992) Phrase-spaced formats improve comprehension in average readers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(2), 143–146. 10.1037/0021‑9010.77.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kay, M., & Terry, M.
    (2010, July). Textured agreements: re-envisioning electronic consent. InProceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (p.13). ACM. 10.1145/1837110.1837127
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1837110.1837127 [Google Scholar]
  26. Klare, G.
    (1963) The Measurement of Readability. Iowa State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kurosu, M., & Kashimura, K.
    (1995) Apparent Usability vs. Inherent Usability. Proceedings of CHI ’95 Mosaic of Creativity, 292–293. 10.1145/223355.223680
    https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223680 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, D. S., Ko, Y. H., Shen, I. H., & Chao, C. Y.
    (2011) Effect of light source, ambient illumination, character size and interline spacing on visual performance and visual fatigue with electronic paper displays. Displays, 32(1), 1–7. 10.1016/j.displa.2010.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2010.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Minassian, A.
    (1997/1998) The Death of Copyright: Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licensing Agreements. UCLA Law Review, 45, 570–608.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. National Center for Education Statistics
    National Center for Education Statistics (2012/2014) PIAAC 2012/2014 Results. RetrievedMarch 12, 2020, fromhttps://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/results/summary.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  31. National Center for Education Statistics
    National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). PIAAC Proficiency Levels for Literacy. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/litproficiencylevel.asp
  32. Norman, G.
    (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education, 15(5), 625–632. 10.1007/s10459‑010‑9222‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y [Google Scholar]
  33. Oakley, R. L.
    (2005) Fairness in electronic contracting: minimum standards for non-negotiated contracts. Hous. L. Rev., 42, 1041.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Peck, E.
    (2019, September19). The Surreal Reason This Woman Can’t Sue Massage Envy Over Her Sexual Assault. Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-house-is-actually-about-to-do-something-great-for-workers-especially-women_n_5d828ccce4b0957256b07f1d
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Plaut, V. C., & Bartlett III, R. P.
    (2012) Blind consent? A social psychological investigation of non-readership of click-through agreements. Law and human behavior, 36(4), 293. 10.1037/h0093969
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093969 [Google Scholar]
  36. Rameezdeen, R., & Rajapakse, C.
    (2007) Contract interpretation: the impact of readability. Construction Management and Economics, 25(7), 729–737. 10.1080/01446190601099228
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190601099228 [Google Scholar]
  37. Redish, J.
    (2000) Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 132–137. 10.1145/344599.344637
    https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344637 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2014) Letting Go of the Words: Writing web content that works. Morgan Kaufmann. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑385930‑3.00032‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385930-3.00032-7 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rello, L., Pielot, M., & Marcos, M. C.
    (2016, May). Make it big!: The effect of font size and line spacing on online readability. InProceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp.3637–3648). ACM. 10.1145/2858036.2858204
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858204 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rossi, A., & Haapio, H.
    (2019) Proactive Legal Design: Embedding Values in the Design of Legal Artefacts. InE. Schweighofer, F. Kummer, & A. Saarenpää (Eds.), Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 22nd International Legal Infomatics Symposium IRIS 2019 (pp.537–544).
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Sauer, J., & Sonderegger, A.
    (2009) The influence of prototype fidelity and aesthetics of design in usability tests: Effects on user behaviour, subjective evaluation and emotion. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 670–677. 10.1016/j.apergo.2008.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2008.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  42. Snyder, F. & Mirabito, A.
    (2019) Boilerplate: what consumers actually think about it. Indiana Law Review, 52(3), 432–453. 10.18060/23838
    https://doi.org/10.18060/23838 [Google Scholar]
  43. Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J.
    (2010) The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 403–410. 10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. Summers, K., & Summers, M.
    (2006) Reading and navigational strategies of Web users with lower literacy skills. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 1–11. 10.1002/meet.1450420179
    https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.1450420179 [Google Scholar]
  45. Thüring, M., & Mahlke, S.
    (2007) Usability, aesthetics and emotions in human-technology interaction. International Journal of Psychology, 42(4), 253–264. 10.1080/00207590701396674
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701396674 [Google Scholar]
  46. Trakman, L. E.
    (2009) The boundaries of contract law in cyberspace. International Business Law Journal, 2, 159.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tullis, T., & Albert, B.
    (2013) Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting usability metrics. Elsevier, Inc. (Morgan Kaufmann).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Upwork
    Upwork (2020) User Agreement. RetrievedMarch 12, 2020fromhttps://www.upwork.com/legal
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Vila, T., R. Greenstadt, and D. Molnar
    (2004) Why we can’t be bothered to read privacy policies: Models of privacy economics as a lemons market. InEconomics of Information Security. Vol 12 of Advances in Information Security, eds.L. J. Camp and S. Lewis, 143–154. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Waddell, T. F., Auriemma, J. R., & Sundar, S. S.
    (2016) Make it simple, or force users to read? Paraphrased design improves comprehension of end user license agreements. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, 5252–5256. 10.1145/2858036.2858149
    https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858149 [Google Scholar]
  51. Warlick, J. T.
    (1997) A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? Information Licensing and De Facto Copyright Legislation in UCC 2B. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 45, 158.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. White, A. M.
    (2009) Behavior and Contract. Law & Ineq., 27, 135.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error