221–230 of 504 posts
Why this feels so incredibly appealing compared to prevailing designs is probably something for a psychologist / cognitive scientist / neurologist (?) to answer -- there is certainly something here that warrants better study than what we in the software industry do in rushed blog posts. But I can personally speak to at least one aspect, having worked for a company that does high end web sites and strategy for large S…
I just click off whenever I see a site like that.
It's not a bad website either, the layout is really well done and it sells the branding. I just don't trust it to be accessible, as I only ever click through sites to find text content. Something about it feels like putting a Christmas tree in your bathroom for the sake of branding.
> Legally-required cookie banner > PostHog.com doesn't use third-party cookies, only a single in-house cookie You're legally required to let me opt out of that cookie. Unless it's essential to the site functionality, in which case you don't need the banner at all.
Isn't it even simpler: Unless the cookie is used to track, you don't need the banner? For example, a cookie used to remember sort order would not require a cookie banner, I think.
(It's not about cookies. It's about tracking.)
I've always thought ‘multi-document interfaces’ as we used to call them are an anti-pattern. I have a perfectly good window manager; why does every app need its own incompatible, usually inferior window manager built in? (Mind you on mobile I very much don't have a perfectly good window manager, and indeed can't even open multiple instances of most apps…)
Compared to the experience of something like “Gimp”, I prefer something contained to a single window. Otherwise two or three such apps running at the same time becomes a game of “where’s my window”. I hate the idea of a toolbar being its own window to be managed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your source for regulators sending emails to sites not having banners for essential cookies?
For that specific question, none; I'm extrapolating from past experience, mostly not mine but other people's (who told me stories). For regulators in general doing dumb things? Lots and lots of examples all over the place. Talk to any small-business owners you know, get them drunk, and encourage them to rant. You'll hear some stories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you like things the way they were before the law, just answer yes to all cookie banners you see. It does not take time if you don’t care to read it. Yours click yes, and they will remember you want to be tracked.
The worst part. The one cookie that should remember your choice NEVER works. Never. It doesn’t matter what site I visit and what choice I do. The next day, every single website asks me to pass through the banners again.
> Legally-required cookie banner > PostHog.com doesn't use third-party cookies, only a single in-house cookie You're legally required to let me opt out of that cookie. Unless it's essential to the site functionality, in which case you don't need the banner at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they can reply back: "Hey, you're wrong".
Doesn’t usually go over well with regulators. If they have to prove their site is fully compliant in court it would become mighty expensive to do so. So, cookie banner it is.
Why this feels so incredibly appealing compared to prevailing designs is probably something for a psychologist / cognitive scientist / neurologist (?) to answer -- there is certainly something here that warrants better study than what we in the software industry do in rushed blog posts. But I can personally speak to at least one aspect, having worked for a company that does high end web sites and strategy for large S…