PHASE ONE: PROPOSAL AND CALL FOR INPUT
The OFFENSICON PROJECT is an attempt to design a small set of emblems to mark hyperlinks which lead to potentially offensive content.
Already, many Web authors are marking potentially offensive links with brief warnings, such as the acronym “NSFW” (not safe for work). But such a warning is not always helpful, since it gives no hint as to why, precisely, the content may offend, nor what degree of offensiveness might be expected. Is it an attractive model in a bathing suit? Or a severed human head being eaten by rats? The reader doesn’t know until he clicks.
Readers have varying criteria, and thresholds of tolerance, for risqué content. Some don’t mind tasteful nudity in artwork, but would not wish to view an orgy. Others might want to know before clicking whether they are about to see an undressed woman or a man. Still others would not object to profane language, but cannot abide photos of rotting corpses.
But explaining why each link might be offensive would require verbosity. Let’s look at an example to illuminate how Offensicons would work:
EXAMPLE 1-A: Here’s what Bill Ardolino thinks of Canada. (Warning: some profanity is used.)
EXAMPLE 1-B: Here’s what Bill Ardolino thinks of Canada 
.
The Offensicon takes the place of the text warning. It uses up less area on the page, and provides just as much information.
I would eventually like to see the Offensicons implemented as free plug-ins to the major content management packages, so that the authors need not do the HTML coding themselves.
During this initial, exploratory phase of the project, I am proposing a set of Offensicons for five broad genera of offensiveness (nudity, sex, profanity, yuckiness, and other), with two of these genera further divided into species. I am then opening the floor for input from the world at large. Please comment on this post with your suggestions or questions.
QUESTIONS ANSWERED
I anticipate certain questions being asked. Here are the answers.
The idea sounds stupid. Why would I want to use these icons to mark my links?
Maybe you wouldn’t. The Offensicon Project is for authors who would like to mark their hyperlinks with these warnings. Since many are already doing so with text, I am assuming a demand exists for an easier and more informative system using graphics.
Wouldn’t it be a real pain to have to mark all of my links with these pictures?
It sure would! I envision the Offensicons being used very sparingly, about as often as the “NSFW” acronym is used at present; certainly not on every link, maybe one in a hundred. If you usually link to safe content, but occasionally link to something risqué, you would put an Offensicon on only the risqué links. On the other hand, if you usually link to offensive content, your readers probably expect your links to be offensive, and so you do not need to use Offensicons at all.
Why do you think there’s a need for this system?
Because the other day I clicked on an “NSFW” link without being properly warned that it would be just about the most revolting thing I’ve ever seen. The next day, Charles Hill was discussing the inadequacy of the “NSFW” convention on his blog, and I realized that a need was not being met.
Would this be primarily to protect children?
No! The Offensicons would provide information to adult readers. Any child too young to see objectionable material is pretty much by definition too young to decide whether to see objectionable material. Children are best protected by restricting access, not by informing them of their choices.
Isn’t this like censorship?
No.
So what do you want me to do?
Right now? Just tell me your thoughts. The whole project is just a rough draft of a proposal, and I am seeking opinions from anyone who offers them. Is it a good idea? Are the designs for the emblems good? The colors, the size? Are there too few, or too many, different icons? Do you have an alternative proposal? Comment here!
THE PROPOSED ICONS
NUDITY is a deliberately vague term that can apply to any amount of exposed skin, not necessarily full nudity. The test should be: is so much skin exposed that this image would be inappropriate in some settings? A lingerie or underwear-clad model would earn a “nudity” label.
There are two nudity Offensicons, one for female and one for male. The degree of nudity is specified in the “alt” text for the Offensicon, which is visible in most browsers when the cursor is held over the image.
EXAMPLE 2-A: Amedeo Modigliani’s most famous work was his Nude Sdraiato 
.
EXAMPLE 2-B: The authenticity of this Michelangelo drawing 
is doubted by many art experts.
EXAMPLE 2-C: I wonder if Alexandra Kerry still has that dress? 
SEX likewise encompasses a wide range of content. If the page you are linking to shows or describes people doing something sexual, or implies that they have done or are about to do so, then one of the three sex Offensicons is warranted. Since the emblems are designed to be used in combination, a link could require more than one Offensicon.
EXAMPLE 3-A: An account of police corruption in Nashville 
.
EXAMPLE 3-B: Hey, kids, the windowshades are there for a reason! 
PROFANITY and YUCKINESS would be used similarly to the Offensicons already mentioned; and OTHER would cover content deemed potentially offensive for reasons not signified by the other emblems (e.g., drug use or racist opinions).
EXAMPLE 4-A: Dustbury usually doesn’t attract such strident commenters.
EXAMPLE 4-B: Okay, fine, I won’t buy a Chinese dog-fur coat 
.
Regarding my post - what would the OFFENSICON be for disturbingly visceral imagery of palsied, seal-like Canadian orgasms?
I see limits.
Just use the “Canucking Phocid Climax” icon. Or did I forget to draw that?
I think this could revolutionize blogging, & might even make people more willing to link me. Maybe. Could you make a Pain in the Ass Alert for LaShawn Barber?
Sean,
This is absolutely brilliant. Whether someone chooses to take it seriously or as a poke at internet society, it’s awesome. An entrepreneur of etherical ideas you are, sir! I’m impressed in a way I am not usually by things internet.
Thanks!
I think there should be a specific icon for Goatse.
Interesting idea, but the icons really don’t scale well. At a small size they become nearly unidentifyable. There’s also the question of accessibility.
The images won’t scale when a user increases their base font size due to eyesight issues. Those with visual impairments won’t benefit at all from this.
My suggestion would be to use the title attribute and perhaps use some kind of secondary visual aid like using a dashed underline or top line over the link itself. Title text will appear as a tooltip when the mouse is over the link and the secondary visual cue can also be there for a more rapid identification of “questionable” links.
Also, what is offensive? It’s a very very subjective definition. What you find offensive, I might find quite normal. For example, should there be an icon for website discussing evolution, athieism or homosexuality? To some these aren’t offensive topics but to others these are extremely offensive.
This also adds to the user’s assumptions. A malicious user could post links to highly profane and graphic content but use an icon to identify the link as clean, acceptable, etc… but the user may be more apt to click on that link because he/she sees an icon implying the target content is within their boundaries.
You’d essentially be creating a false sense of trust that would be easy to abuse and, eventually, cause this system to be ignored.
I prefer the lack of warning we have in our current typical browsing experience. It forces the user to be more aware of what he/she is accessing. It’s a harsh approach, but users very quickly realize not to trust every link they see.
I think such an approach works if the approach is unique to a single, or only a handful of websites. Each site would have its own set of icons or method for identifying target content that may be questionable. That way if a user abuses one system, other websites using other systems will be fine.
I also believe good content should already tell the user what’s contained in the target link within the context of the surrounding content. Add in a simple NSFW abbreviation and you’re good to go; users know the target content might be questionable and the context will give the reader an idea why it is questionable.
Ruthsarian: You are right that the icons don’t scale down so well. One answer could be to go with a simple alphabetic rating (see how this site uses P, V, and M), but I had hoped to find icons which suggest visually what they are warning about. I’ll work some more on the designs and see if I can’t simplify them to make them more scaleable.
Your point about the author’s discretion is of course true. Web authors could use the icons differently to reflect their own criteria, or even use them wrongly, as a prank. I’m not sure that’s much of a problem, though. A great many current Web conventions (including the “NSFW” acronym) are vulnerable to abuse, but readers gravitate to trustworthy authors.
But, then how do you search on them?
How do you search on them? I’m not sure what you mean. You mean you want to search the Web for sites which use Offensicons? Or you want to search for links which others have tagged with specific Offensicons? There would be ways to do both.
A site which implemented Offensicons could have a sentence somewhere that says “This site uses the Offensicons link rating sytem,” or similar wording, with a link to a legend (maybe a small pop-up window) of the icons and their meaning. The primary benefit of such a link would be the information to the readers; but a secondary benefit would be that anyone searching for the word “Offensicons” would find that site.
Since the “alt” text used by Offensicons is just plain descriptive words such as ‘nudity,’ ‘profanity,’ etc., any links tagged often with those Offensicons would turn up in Google searches for those terms.
I like the idea. Very much.
Having said that, I’m sure you see the humor in using a graphic of a sexual act to warn of graphic sexual acts.
Supper 12-02-2005
Try one of these specials with your lunch:
Paul (Wizbang) phones it in
Sean Gleeson proposes a icon system for links
Acidman fights
Hans Bricks tells why McCain can’t win
Confederate Yankee writes Murtha
Hog On Ice considers the four new…
The problem you have with conveying different sexual situations. I think that having one for all occasions would be plenty.
Having one for Sexual Situations, Nudity, (Offensive) Language, Drugs/Drug Use, and Violence. And the idea of ALT tag use can give more descriptive details, as can tool tips for the selected link with the TITLE tag.
Another thing I wanna add: this should be either color gnostic, or Black/White. Like it or not, Green means go in North America.
Please see my revised art for the icons. They are 17 percent shorter, and look better than before at the small size.
Not to be the shrinking violet, but I’ve come across some graphic violence in links that messed me up for days. So I think its good. You got the Jane stamp of appoval.