4 ms·
Even fully compliant dialogs are a pain in the ass. It's why addons like "I don't care about cookies"[1] exist. [1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/
by Karunamon 5y ago
Even fully compliant dialogs are a pain in the ass. It's why addons like "I don't care about cookies"[1] exist.
[1]: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-cookies/fihnjjcciajhdojfnbdddfaoknhalnja?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about-...
- pbhjpbhj 5y agoArrive on page, click "reject all", done. That's what it's like with fully compliant pages.
- Karunamon 5y agoI prefer skipping the second step and not having government-mandated boilerplate interrupting my browsing at all. For something so bloody inconsequential, dismissing the warning is of more import than selecting an option.
- tehjoker 5y agoInconsequential? Without cookies of this nature the surveillance economy would have had a harder time getting off the ground. We're just numbed to it now because we've been continuously assaulted for decades.
- Karunamon 5y agoYes, inconsequential. As in, there are no tangible consequences to me (or likely anyone else) regardless of what option I select.
- dmitriid 5y ago1. You don't need a dialog at all if you only use data that's strictly required for the functionality of your website. There. Problem solved. In a different discussion someone even linked a great example of a GDPR-compliant site: https://github.com https://github.com See? Easy 2. Okay, for some reason you decide to collect more data. Just as easy: You present the user with a simple accept/reject, where "reject" is clearly labeled, is the default selected option, and the website continues working when the user choses "reject" See? Easy. Those "pain-in-the-ass dialogs"? If they are pain in the ass, they are not compliant.