Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Is a Dickover?

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 227 posts

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#131

Post by Freak_NL »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #101

I endorse this name because, once it's the standard name for this technique, people will have to use it in meetings when seriously proposing them, which makes it harder to seriously propose. "And this is our design for the Dickover." "Guys, I'm not sure we should Dickover the customers." "You know, when you say it that way...." Epilogue: six months later, the site is dead because they converted nobody to their newsle…

Who are those people? Those perpetually amused folk who feel not a bit of rage when a dickover is slapped in their face, and for whom entering their e-mail address in the dickover is actually a thing they would seriously consider?

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#132

Post by tosti »

bni wrote: post #119

If you zoom websites to be able to read them, like I do. Then these are especially frustrating because I have to zoom out to find the close button. Its a chase every time, and sometimes I give up. How are these allowed to exist when there are the EU Web Accessibility Directive ?

HN itself is terrible with UI scale >1.0

I keep scrolling horizontally just to read the text.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#133

Post by danw1979 »

TheTon wrote: post #96
bayesnet wrote: post #33

The only surprising thing about the Tom’s Hardware example was that John Gruber evidently does not use an adblocker

Look closer. I doubt he uses Chrome regularly, I think he's using it to write this article precisely because he has no extensions installed in it.

As a long time DF reader I can assure you that John does not use Chrome to browse the world wide web.

You are almost certainly correct in saying he is using it to illustrate his point because Chrome is engineered to be part of the internet advertising complex that commits so many of these crimes against design.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#134

Post by danw1979 »

-warren wrote: post #47

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.

Auto reader mode in mobile safari for any site I recognise having read previously that has dickovers, cookie bars, poor typography or any other design issue that distracts me from the content.

e.g. science.org - linked frequently from HN and now every time I click a link to it, I’m dropped into a perfectly readable, distraction free view of the content.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#135

Post by barnabee »

apple4ever wrote: post #114
ragebol wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole cookie dickover concept is malicious compliance. The goal was: no tracking but ask consent if you must ("who would do this, that would be super annoying"). Except every website decided they'd rather annoy everyone.

A properly informed person would've understood that's what they'd do. They'd also probably realize cookies are not a big deal.

Tracking people around the web (especially without asking) is a big deal though.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#136

Post by adrian_b »

For me the fact that dickovers are possible is a bug in all JavaScript interpreters.

In my opinion, any decent browser should make impossible both dickovers and also other related hostile actions, like the possibility for a Web page to modify the right-click menu or to prevent text selection.

Unfortunately completely disabling scripts is rarely a solution, because many sites do not work at all. But the kind of actions mentioned above never serve a useful purpose for the user, so they should be ineffective and their should be no way for the hostile site to determine whether they work or no.

Modal windows may sometimes be useful in applications that are controlled by myself, but it should always be possible to override them in externally-controlled applications, like when browsing Internet sites.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#137

Post by [deleted] »

brett-jackson wrote: post #87
SoftTalker wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or your company could respect its users and only use cookies for essential site functions. Then you don't need a dickover.

The vast majority of users don’t know or care. The ones who do are blocking the cookies anyways. No one wins with these popups (except trial lawyers and sellers of cookie consent SaaS, of course).

[deleted]

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#138

Post by barnabee »

thih9 wrote: post #92

> Cookie permissions are unnecessary. Signing up for an email newsletter is unnecessary. They are necessary, as in: without them the creator perhaps wouldn’t be able to justify running the website. As long as users visit websites with poor ux and show no preference versus websites with good ux, there will reliably be websites with poor ux.

Running the website isn’t necessary. These people should try not running any websites for a bit.

It was just fine when most websites were academic or hobby content, not businesses.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#139

Post by barnabee »

avaer wrote: post #10

[flagged]

Abusive business models should be illegal. Nobody is entitled to harass their customers because their business would fall apart otherwise.

Get a new business model or close the site. Nobody has the right to do whatever they feel like to make money, no matter the impact on other people.

Re: What Is a Dickover?

#140

Post by clear-octopus »

econ wrote: post #93
michaelt wrote: post #19

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…

Best ones, when refusing, ask again on the next page. Perhaps they don't know what a functional cookie is? Maybe the marketing vocabulary only has YES?

I really don’t understand why the desired cookie behavior could not be set globally for all websites in the browser. Why do I have the accept / reject them on every website and trust the website will actually do what I ask.
Post reply on HN