I find the following problems:
- Not usable under 64x64 resolution.
- Too many graphical sprites to get used to.
- Using color-outline with black-content... meh!
- For being more cognition friendly, it uses redundant representation of similar notions (graphic bar && red-color, to negate).
- Not quite simple.
- You can't just look at 'em an understand - you have to be through (But I have
- On the websites, how exactly are we going to put all these icons, eh!?!
So, let's simplify things a bit. I'd prefer a single-icon to start up with - in case I fail, we already have plan B. There's a reason behind the single-icon approach: multi-icon representation produces significantly more cognitive load for the user to parse the icons' information one by one & then decide - but all they actually want, is- just to look at it and feel safe/unsafe.
While making the icon, I've particularly kept some factors in mind. Although I don't propose them to be guidelines; it's just, we will have them as specifications for this discussion. Those are-
- It has to be monochrome (or monochrome-possible).
- It has to be simple, yet informative enough - although we are aiming for very subtle-period working memory, still will try not to make an information-overload to the viewer.
- It has to be page design-neutral, to be used by all types of organizations alike, and also to restrict modification (which can also be misused to cheat the system).
- It has to be low-resolution feasible with as less modification as possible (none, the better).
- The Icon is better to resemble with the existing copyright (& creative-commons) icon, to be seamlessly integrated in the web, without seeming to be an alien logo- accidentally dropped out of nowhere.
- Unlike the creative-commons icons having many modes, the privacy icon has many parameters - they are different.
- Each of the elements in the icon can be used to indicate the different parameters, but it has to synchronize well with the iconic implementation to mean it.