# University Community Members' Perceptions of Labels for Online Media
## 5 Example Label Study
### Survey Design
Comparing the data in Tables 8 and 9, depending on the group, between 17.6% and 43.3% of respondents said that the unconditional supplemental label would be annoying. On the other hand, the data in Tables 14 and 15 shows that between 80.2% and 86.9% of respondents thought that blocking labels would be annoying. When asked whether people would view a given label when viewing news articles on social media, between 38.5% and 59.3% of respondents in each group answered that they would review blocking labels, and between 55% and 74.5% of respondents said they would review informational labels. When asked whether or not other people would view these labels on articles, between 55% and 60.7% of each group said that other people would view warning labels. Finally, between 60.7% and 77.8% of each group said that the informational labels would be useful for judging the trustworthiness of news articles, while between 48.9% and 59% of each group of respondents thought that warning labels would be useful. The understandability question also had strong results. The labels have also been divided into an additional set of categories for analysis: supplementary, on top, and intermediary. These categories describe the presentation of the label rather than the content of the label itself. Briefly, supplementary labels present their information while altering the original article presentation as little as possible. On top labels are positioned on the original article. Intermediary labels leave the presentation of an article as-is, instead displaying their information on an intermediate page after the article link has been clicked and before it is displayed. Tables 16 and 17 show the results in terms of these categories. Additional categorizations have been used to facilitate the comparison between labels with context information and without context information (presented in Tables 22 and 23) and amongst labels with no explanation, a basic explanation, and an extended explanation (presented in Tables 24 and 25). The labels with more information are seen as more helpful across all different groups: in each case, the extended explanation labels get the highest helpful scores, followed by those with a limited explanation, and then those with no explanation. The University A group and 18-29 group found the no explanation labels the most annoying; the other groups did not. For three of the four groups, the labels with context got higher helpful scores than those without context. For all four groups, labels with no context got higher 'annoying' scores than those with context presented. Respondents' reactions to blocking labels were mixed. They received consistently high annoying scores (between 80.2% and 86.9% across the four groupings); however, more than half of University A respondents and 18-29 year-olds indicated that they would be useful for mitigating the effects of damaging articles. More than half of both of these groups said that they would review them when viewing social media as well. However, the University B responses and 30 and older responses were more negative, with only 31.9% and 38.6% of respondents, respectively, seeing them as useful for mitigating harmful articles and less than half saying that they would view the labels. Intermediate labels fared slightly better, with all four groups indicating that more than 50% of respondents in the group found the label helpful, though between 75.6% and 80.1% found them annoying. All four groups had more than half of respondents say that they would be useful in judging news article trustworthiness. Three of the four groups