4 ms·

The UK government doesn't get enough credit for the work they do on making their information accessible. They publish all kinds of open-source research, the sit

The UK government doesn't get enough credit for the work they do on making their information accessible. They publish all kinds of open-source research, the sites are built from the ground-up with accessibility in mind, and they are incredibly lightweight. Try a few for yourself: - https://www.nhs.uk/ https://www.nhs.uk/ (833kb) - https://www.gov.uk/ https://www.gov.uk/ (428kb)

mbrock 8y ago
Really good stuff! It’s kind of sad to see the cookie warning on first visit to an NHS page—from an accessibility point of view. If you’re sick and maybe older and you go to find some health information, the first thing you want to see isn’t “We’ve placed some small files on your computer called cookies. Are you okay with that?” It’s an almost nonsensical, bizarre question for anyone who isn’t an IT expert.
- b2ccb2 8y ago
  The workaround would be pretty simple to implement. Cookies are only needed when you need 'state' between the client and server, so only serve cookies when you need state. The very first instance of state should be the very first instance of a cookie warning. Of course, once you have implemented cookie based tracking, this doesn't work anymore.
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    It is a lot more simpler then that actually. The law does not say that you need consent for all cookies, you just need consent for some types of cookies. If it is just between the user and your own server for some necessary state information you dont need this dialog. If they removed the Social Media and Third Party tracking cookies they could remove the dialog completely.
- deanclatworthy 8y ago
  Unfortunately it’s the law. But I completely agree. I’d argue it’s inaccessible for everyone too.
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    They could have avoided that easily by not including Social Media and Third Party cookies.
    - deanclatworthy 8y ago
      An organisation as large as the NHS/UK GOV is not going to have their own in-house analytics solutions. And I believe even that would require a cookie policy to be displayed under the (current) legislation.
      - VonGallifrey 8y ago
        Or alternatively they could just not do any tracking or analytics based purely on the server logs. There is always a choice. It is not the law that makes them display this, it is their choices that made them need to comply to the law.
        deanclatworthy 8y ago
        You can't do any form of user testing or heatmaps with server logs. And whilst real user testing is undertaken, sometimes the passive collection of heatmap data etc. is best done in an unbiased environment (i.e. you don't know you are being tested).
        RodgerTheGreat 8y ago
        There are plenty of open-source analytics tools that you can self-host, like Open Web Analytics. You can gather all the information you need for usability testing without handing it over to a third party and compromising the privacy of your users.
        deanclatworthy 8y ago
        Of course they can, but there is always a cost of hosting your own infra. There is a strong argument for the gov to be doing this in house, but I suspect it's not 100% the case and individual departments have the freedom to put their own tracking codes on their own site.
- antihero 8y ago
  Yeah, it's an incredibly dumb law.
  - HenryBemis 8y ago
    It is also unecessary to have cookies on a gov healthcare website. They can measure/track/count traffic and statistics from their servers' logs and run cookies-free environments. Exactly to reduce stress and confusion to people who lack these basic IT skills.
    - kristianc 8y ago
      > Exactly to reduce stress and confusion to people who lack these basic IT skills. Have you run user testing to see if people who lack IT skills find cookie warnings confusing? Do you think it would have been missed by Gov.UK's own user testing? If you don't like tracking you can come out and say that rather than couch it in the language of some voiceless 'confused' IT user. You'd likely be on former ground too - as the Gov.UK site sets more or less a gold standard for usability. Besides that, even if you tracked using server logs you are likely using PII so would still need the same warning anyway.
  - Quarrelsome 8y ago
    I don't think the law is dumb but the implementation certainly is. The settings should be incorporated into the browser so your browser tells the site what your preferences are. Then you only have to set them once.
dmerfield 8y ago
The NHS front-end library is a particularly thoughtful set of interface components: -https://nhsuk.github.io/nhsuk-frontend/ https://nhsuk.github.io/nhsuk-frontend/ -https://github.com/nhsuk/nhsuk-frontend https://github.com/nhsuk/nhsuk-frontend I’ve cherrypicked a few here and there for a number of projects and they’ve worked well.
raehik 8y ago
I love the GOV.uk website. It comes across as very, very well designed (phrased like that because I'm no designer, I can only judge as a dumb user). I use it and most Hugo-based websites as my ideal target for clear information accessibility.

mbrock 8y ago

Really good stuff! It’s kind of sad to see the cookie warning on first visit to an NHS page—from an accessibility point of view. If you’re sick and maybe older and you go to find some health information, the first thing you want to see isn’t “We’ve placed some small files on your computer called cookies. Are you okay with that?” It’s an almost nonsensical, bizarre question for anyone who isn’t an IT expert.

b2ccb2 8y ago
The workaround would be pretty simple to implement. Cookies are only needed when you need 'state' between the client and server, so only serve cookies when you need state. The very first instance of state should be the very first instance of a cookie warning. Of course, once you have implemented cookie based tracking, this doesn't work anymore.
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  It is a lot more simpler then that actually. The law does not say that you need consent for all cookies, you just need consent for some types of cookies. If it is just between the user and your own server for some necessary state information you dont need this dialog. If they removed the Social Media and Third Party tracking cookies they could remove the dialog completely.
deanclatworthy 8y ago
Unfortunately it’s the law. But I completely agree. I’d argue it’s inaccessible for everyone too.
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  They could have avoided that easily by not including Social Media and Third Party cookies.
  - deanclatworthy 8y ago
    An organisation as large as the NHS/UK GOV is not going to have their own in-house analytics solutions. And I believe even that would require a cookie policy to be displayed under the (current) legislation.
    - VonGallifrey 8y ago
      Or alternatively they could just not do any tracking or analytics based purely on the server logs. There is always a choice. It is not the law that makes them display this, it is their choices that made them need to comply to the law.
      - deanclatworthy 8y ago
        You can't do any form of user testing or heatmaps with server logs. And whilst real user testing is undertaken, sometimes the passive collection of heatmap data etc. is best done in an unbiased environment (i.e. you don't know you are being tested).
        RodgerTheGreat 8y ago
        There are plenty of open-source analytics tools that you can self-host, like Open Web Analytics. You can gather all the information you need for usability testing without handing it over to a third party and compromising the privacy of your users.
        deanclatworthy 8y ago
        Of course they can, but there is always a cost of hosting your own infra. There is a strong argument for the gov to be doing this in house, but I suspect it's not 100% the case and individual departments have the freedom to put their own tracking codes on their own site.
antihero 8y ago
Yeah, it's an incredibly dumb law.
- HenryBemis 8y ago
  It is also unecessary to have cookies on a gov healthcare website. They can measure/track/count traffic and statistics from their servers' logs and run cookies-free environments. Exactly to reduce stress and confusion to people who lack these basic IT skills.
  - kristianc 8y ago
    > Exactly to reduce stress and confusion to people who lack these basic IT skills. Have you run user testing to see if people who lack IT skills find cookie warnings confusing? Do you think it would have been missed by Gov.UK's own user testing? If you don't like tracking you can come out and say that rather than couch it in the language of some voiceless 'confused' IT user. You'd likely be on former ground too - as the Gov.UK site sets more or less a gold standard for usability. Besides that, even if you tracked using server logs you are likely using PII so would still need the same warning anyway.
- Quarrelsome 8y ago
  I don't think the law is dumb but the implementation certainly is. The settings should be incorporated into the browser so your browser tells the site what your preferences are. Then you only have to set them once.

dmerfield 8y ago

The NHS front-end library is a particularly thoughtful set of interface components: -https://nhsuk.github.io/nhsuk-frontend/ https://nhsuk.github.io/nhsuk-frontend/ -https://github.com/nhsuk/nhsuk-frontend https://github.com/nhsuk/nhsuk-frontend I’ve cherrypicked a few here and there for a number of projects and they’ve worked well.

raehik 8y ago

I love the GOV.uk website. It comes across as very, very well designed (phrased like that because I'm no designer, I can only judge as a dumb user). I use it and most Hugo-based websites as my ideal target for clear information accessibility.