27 ms·
Personally ... I think the best option (if you have to have cookies (and there are plenty of reasons you may want/need them)) is to have screen-wide, contrastin
by warrenm 3y ago
Personally ... I think the best option (if you have to have cookies (and there are plenty of reasons you may want/need them)) is to have screen-wide, contrasting-color, short-top-to-bottom bar with a single OK or Accept button for dismissal
Do not give people options about cookies - either they accept (and dismiss the notice), or they leave
When I am presented with cookie options, I start to wonder why there are "unnecessary" cookies present: why are you letting me accept "necessary" cookies or "all" cookies? Why would you have ones that are not needed? Seems hyper sketch ... and I'll go elsewhere (or reject all)
- pocketarc 3y agoIf you're adding a cookie banner for legal reasons, that means you're covering against GDPR, which says that you're -not- allowed to refuse service based on someone not wanting cookies that are not necessary for providing the service (e.g. all the analytics/tracking crap). You're obligated to give them a way to opt out while continuing to use your service, and it should be as easy to decline as it is to accept[0]. The funny part, of course, is that countless services have put up banners that don't make it easy at all to reject, which means they're still not compliant, they just make the legal team feel warm and fuzzy. That's why you see necessary vs all, because it's "can we track you or not". If you're just doing absolutely required cookies (e.g. session cookie), you don't even need a banner. [0]: https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/consent
- snmx999 3y agoSome of Germany's largest online newspapers, like Bild (https://www.bild.de/ https://www.bild.de/) demand either that you subscribe to their online paper or consent to all cookies. As far as I see there is no way to reject the cookies.
- mnw21cam 3y agoThat's only because Schrems hasn't got round to suing them yet.
- diffeomorphism 3y agoRuled illegal already for other websites: https://noyb.eu/de/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illegal-decides-german-dpa https://noyb.eu/de/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
- markus92 3y agoEnglish link: https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illegal-decides-german-dpa https://noyb.eu/en/pay-or-okay-tech-news-site-heisede-illega...
- warrenm 3y agoIf that is true, why would any sane company/website stay based in the EU (if they want to use cookies)?
- diffeomorphism 3y agoUnrelated to where you are based. Also there is no restriction on cookies as such, just on spying. So defaulting to spying seems much less sane now, agreed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- IanCal 3y ago> When I am presented with cookie options, I start to wonder why there are "unnecessary" cookies present: why are you letting me accept "necessary" cookies or "all" cookies? Why would you have ones that are not needed? Seems hyper sketch ... and I'll go elsewhere (or reject all) Because some are required for the functioning of the site. They can justify dealing with those without you approving it. Some are there for advertising, that's not required for you to use the site but they'd definitely like to. So they need you to actively consent.
- warrenm 3y agoI know why the others are there - but the fact that you have unnecessary cookies makes you look sketchy
- mnw21cam 3y ago> Do not give people options about cookies - either they accept (and dismiss the notice), or they leave That's outright and explicitly illegal. (I just thought I'd make that point in a quicker and simpler way than the otherwise great sister post.)