Age rating explanation includes an exhaustive list of attributes not present
In an application's details panel, GNOME Software includes an age rating and an explanation of that age rating. For applications with negative OARS attributes, such as Hedgewars from Flathub (with a "Teen" rating in my locale), the explanation is simple and straightforward:
The application was rated this way because it features:
- Uncontrolled chat functionality between users
However, for an application which has the "Early childhood" rating and no negative attributes, such as GNOME Sudoku from Flathub (with an Early Childhood rating in my locale), the explanation is an exhaustive list of every OARS attribute under the sun which it (says it) does not have:
The application was rated this way because it features:
- No sexual violence
- No references to alcohol
- No references to illicit drugs
- ...
I find this startling for a few reasons:
- The list is very long, but, unlike the list for Hedgewars, it does not feel like it is intended to be read. Instead, it could be summed up in a sentence: "The application was rated this way because it features no content which we consider objectionable."
- The list of negative attributes could be considered, itself, graphic detail :b There's nothing objectionable in how they are stated (in the right context), but looking at a friendly piece of software and quickly coming across a text box with phrases such as "dead human remains" beneath a button labelled "early childhood" does not inspire exploration.
- At least for ESRB ratings, E-rated software only lists the presence of negative descriptors on the box. For example: https://www.esrb.org/ratings/34067/Shovel+Knight/.
- In some ways, the full list of OARS attributes is an implementation detail. For instance, D-Feet from Flathub doesn't specify any OARS attributes, so GNOME Software draws from the complete set of possible attributes, including "No references to homosexuality". This is not a factor which should affect the content rating in many locales, and encourages people to file issues such as #993 (closed) because it is a concerning thing for GNOME Software to imply that it would.
My suggestion here is to handle the case of an application having no negative attributes differently. Instead of an exhaustive list of "no …", show a simple, non-frightening block of text which says the same thing. There's an argument to be made that the list of "no" attributes serves as documentation. That is, it reassures someone that the rating of some software is based on attributes they consider relevant. However, this list only appears in one case, even though the question of "what does this not have" is just as relevant for something with stronger age restrictions. So perhaps it would make sense, in a separate task, to create a GNOME Help page about how these ratings are generated, or link to some relevant information on the web.