Discussion: Consent boxes are poor privacy

Discussion: Consent boxes are poor privacy

This discussion expresses the views of the author. Debate entries can be sent to [email protected]

in this book Designed with the mind in mind Jeff Johnson writes that our purpose affects our perception. You have a goal when you visit a website. The goal is to never adjust your cookie settings. It becomes an obstacle on the way to the goal. We are used to this hurdle. We are used to clicking away from it, often without even realizing it. In the late 1990s the term “blindness bunting” came into being. Now we have “cookie exhaustion”. We close it without reading it. We accept without consideration.

Exhaustion of cookies

“When pop-ups, sound, movement, and blinking are used too often to get users’ attention, a psychological phenomenon called habituation emerges. Our brain pays less and less attention to any frequently occurring stimulus.”

This is the good old story of wolves, wolves.

I pushed the obstacle away. You have allowed the site to do whatever it wants. I follow you everywhere. Cookie fatigue has given marketers carte blanche. Even if you are not exhausted, you can still be fooled Design culture and many dark patterns. Without consent, actors should be more careful. Then they don’t have the green light to do whatever they want.

Cake and milk chocolate

This summer I was listening Lørn.Tech with guest Bår Stenvik. in this book The big game Bår has some very good ideas about cookies as he compares them to the food industry. We now trust the content that manufacturers mention on the packaging. This is not always the case. This should be the case with cookies as well. Users should be able to read what we do with them and trust us. We must be transparent! Users are free to choose the digital services they wish to use, in the same way that we customers are free to choose the foods we will buy at the convenience store. We do not need to give Freya’s approval that milk chocolate contains nuts.

See also  Cold is good for the battery

Google says “please do not disturb”

Appearing in Google search is no longer just about quality code, links, and good content. Hassan User experience is also a factor. They say there are no intrusive interstitial ads. It can be translated to any popups. So you can get a lower Google search ranking if you annoy users with a window encouraging you to sign up for newsletters.

So Google says it Pop-ups provide poorer user experiences. However, this does not apply to approval funds. Inda.

Interstitial ads that appear to be in response to a legal obligation, such as the use of cookies or age verification.


Now you’re sitting there thinking, Didn’t I get such a box when I came here for this case? Yes, you probably did. And maybe you clicked it away in a hurry. We don’t always practice what we preach. The King of Web Standards, Jeffrey Zeldman, says it’s very well done in the article from my garden:

It is not “ridiculous” that an article about three basic usability principles appears on a website that violates these three principles.

What is the alternative?

The alternative is to use cookies in a decent manner. Don’t collect more data than we need – and be careful who we share it with. We must be open about what we collect and how we use the data we have collected. We should not do anything we do not like others to do to us.

Let’s follow Hill’s law. Refocus on users.

Hanisi Anenih

Hanisi Anenih

"Web specialist. Lifelong zombie maven. Coffee ninja. Hipster-friendly analyst."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *