81–90 of 227 posts
Did anyone else think this was a clever keming pun? Fortunately, for those sites where either JS is required for the content or to remove the dickover, browsers still have an Inspect Element tool that makes deleting this and other annoyances not too difficult and rather cathartic.
I have a theory that about 97% of developers and managers completed the cookie consent (or whatever) on their own product 5 years ago and hence never see it again, and they have no idea how bad the experience for new customers actually is. So the developers and bosses all think they're doing a great job and they've got a carefully curated homepage, even though the regular users get a cloudflare captcha, then a cookie…
I think you mean dickover,sir.
[flagged]
This is not a sense of "entitlement", it's just the fundamental reality of what the web is.
One of criteria for inclusion into Kagi Small Web [1] is no dickovers. Thanks for naming it properly John. [1] https://kagi.com/smallweb
I have a theory that about 97% of developers and managers completed the cookie consent (or whatever) on their own product 5 years ago and hence never see it again, and they have no idea how bad the experience for new customers actually is. So the developers and bosses all think they're doing a great job and they've got a carefully curated homepage, even though the regular users get a cloudflare captcha, then a cookie…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh we care, but when it comes to cookie dickovers, we care more about making the corporate lawyers happy. I’ll admit that I definitely like collecting my paycheck much more than I worry about customer annoyance at acknowledging a cookie policy. Some hills ain't worth dying on.
Or your company could respect its users and only use cookies for essential site functions. Then you don't need a dickover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh we care, but when it comes to cookie dickovers, we care more about making the corporate lawyers happy. I’ll admit that I definitely like collecting my paycheck much more than I worry about customer annoyance at acknowledging a cookie policy. Some hills ain't worth dying on.
Or your company could respect its users and only use cookies for essential site functions. Then you don't need a dickover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but being mildly offensive is kind of the point: makes it more memorable, and clearly differentiated from “popup” which is too broad and has many valid uses in an interface. Dickovers never have a valid reason to exist.
> makes it more memorable, and clearly differentiated from “popup” which is too broad and has many valid uses in an interface. Dickovers never have a valid reason to exist. This is hardly convincing. The author even describes it as a "popup" or a "popover" which is already descriptive enough without further explanation. It is just an "unwanted popup" or "unwanted popover". The fact he brought up a definition of that…
Dickovers are annoying -- tell me, what's your solution? For me, a combination of a) not patronizing these sites, but when I have to b) some ad blockers help. Nothing seems to work well though.