281–290 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Policy making assumed good faith actors Let's not paint the policymakers naïve when they're in fact incompetent.
They are not incompetent in general. Most stuff works pretty well in Europe and better than in most of the world. We just focus on the bad regulations
Bold thing to say.
t. European
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How nice of the EU to have determined for the rest of the world that the “cultural expectation” should be that every business do the design equivalent of wearing clown makeup.
The EU doesn't require banners. Companies could stop selling and storing your data. They could only use cookies when absolutely essential. They could use lots of kinds of UX. This is the equivalent of businesses who put a big visible "20% the state says we have to give our employees healthcare" fee on their bill to throw a hissy fit and hope customers get angry at the government for protecting them instead of the bus…
The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it's a bad policy, something is really wrong.
it's an example of malicious compliance by some, and herd mentality by others. I had a discussion with my CFO about removing the cookie banner from our website (because we don't set any tracking cookies, and cookies for things like login are exempted) and he said "yeah, but it makes the site seem less legitimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No." If every webdev who would say no can be trivially replaced by webdevs who won't say no, then yes, it is webdevs.
It's silly to blame the individual who doesn't have the authority or power at the business making these choices.
Firefox also has an extension called "Auto Reader View" in which you can set sites to automatically change to that mode.
I started an e-commerce brand on a Shopify site. I swore to myself I would never put up one of those stupid things that pops up "Someone bought X product an hour ago!" messages in the corner of the screen. I ended up trying it. Boosted conversion rate meaningfully. Worth the price I pay in mild self-loathing. Chesterton's popup, I guess.
That's the real problem. Being aggressively annoying works . Dark patterns work. Popups that grab your attention work. Flashing text conveying urgency works. Thumbnails with open-mouth YouTube-face work. Moving buttons around so people mis-click works. Tiny [X] buttons that make people accidentally click an ad work. You're never going to convince someone to stop doing something that is making them money.
Should load much slower. Also, where is the unrelated autoplaying video that will unmute if you actually click it, that follows your scrolling and only becomes smaller when you dismiss it? Plus, it should probably have text that cuts off letting you know you can have access for just $10/month. Plus, isn't this website undissmissably "better in the app" after a few minutes of attempting to use it on a phone? Where's t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also needs to scroll in after a second or two, and shift the page content down, so you mis-click the wrong link, and end up loading something that takes forever to load and somehow manages to cause the back button to misbehave.
Clever people with no morals use that to load ads under your finger, timed to create an inadvertent click. I swear NYT do this in their games app, the play button gets replaced with a subscribe as the late loaded subscribe element shifts the page exactly the amount to put subscribe under your finger. I wonder how well it worked?
Every news website does it and, in the UK, the local news outlets are amongst the worst.
The thing I don’t get: many of these sites are running Google Adsense, amongst other ad networks. Adsense Ts & Cs specifically forbid site behaviour that deliberately causes users to misclick on ads.
So why aren’t these sites being banned by Adsense?
The answer, I suspect, is follow the money: it seems likely that they bring in too much money for Google to ban them even though they’re overtly and outrageously breaking the rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish we had a UI paradigm where whatever is underneath your cursor is not allowed to change. If you hover a button, that button must remain right there for you to click, if you hover some text, it must remain there for you to select. Browser and OS-enforced, ideally. We can debate the specifics, maybe it's only in effect for X seconds after you stop moving the cursor, maybe it creates a 100px diameter disk of stabi…
Oh, that UI paradigm already exist. It's just that browser makers are too busy with things like webasm, webgpu, or allowing pages to launch location/notification popups at users, so they don't have time to fix fundamental flaws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the real problem. Being aggressively annoying works . Dark patterns work. Popups that grab your attention work. Flashing text conveying urgency works. Thumbnails with open-mouth YouTube-face work. Moving buttons around so people mis-click works. Tiny [X] buttons that make people accidentally click an ad work. You're never going to convince someone to stop doing something that is making them money.
That's the real problem: selling drugs works! Forming a cartel to produce and distribute addictive products, killing anyone who gets in your way? It's effective! You're never going to convince someone to stop killing people and dumping their bodies into culverts when they're making money. It's just not reasonable to expect that, or do anything about it.