3 ms·
For me, the biggest issue is that it's incredibly annoying to reject non-essential cookies. It usually involves clicking "Cookie Preferences", scrolling through
by whakim 5y ago
For me, the biggest issue is that it's incredibly annoying to reject non-essential cookies. It usually involves clicking "Cookie Preferences", scrolling through a bunch of options (which are mercifully unchecked by default, thank god), and finding the "Reject All" button somewhere. (As the author points out, this experience is significantly more painful on mobile.) If every site simply had "Accept All" and "Reject All" as options, I don't think it'd be a big deal.
- colejohnson66 5y agoWhich is actually what GDPR requires. Essentially, rejecting must be as easy as accepting.
- geenew 5y agoThat is the case on some government websites. The added friction to reject unnecessary cookies is a type of dark pattern, I believe. I do wonder how necessary invasive cookies are. Site file access logs, referral addresses, and geolocation of client ip addresses would greatly improve on info gathered as compared with traditional advertising, and shouldn’t require cookies.
- SwiftyBug 5y agoAt this point this should be implemented as a browser API so every cookies preferences dialogue would be the same across all sites. This would even enable browsers to present less intrusive dialogues UIs on mobile. Having to decipher poor UI implementations of the same thing for each site is really annoying.
- colejohnson66 5y agoWasn’t that tried with Do-Not-Track? The issue isn’t that there isn’t a way to know what the user wants; it’s that companies deliberately make these decisions so some users click “accept” because it’s easier than rejecting everything one by one. Then the users blame the government for this mess when the companies are actually violating the law.