alt Hacker NewsI wonder how many people provide consent through these banners. Is it frequent enough to be worth the terrible user experience?
I know some sites use dark patterns in their cookie banners, which I consider to be a helpful hint that the company doesn't respect the users.
Replies
I have been on a call with a CMP where they got mad at me for not resetting our user's preferences and because our 'do not accept' was high due to the fact i refused to de-promote it via a dark pattern. I kid you not.
fwiw; looking at our stats for the past year: No consent: 40.8% Full Consent: 31% Just closed the damn window: 28.1% Went through the nightmare selector: 0.07%
~1.5M impressions from GDPR areas
Most of the sites use dark patterns in the banners, from not presenting decline option to hiding and renaming it to be unrecognizable. For example I make an effort in always picking Decline All option if available and the practice shows that I click on Allow All in about 20-30% of all banners, because it was impossible to avoid. So I safely assume that general population clicks Allow All even more.
It's always those awful websites with a million popups, adverts, sites that reflow after 10 seconds, etc. They would be horrible to use even without the cookie banners.
Considering that for most banners the "consent" is the easy option I assume a lot. People want to get rid of the banners.
However I claim the point of the bad UX is to make users angry and then have them complain about EU etc. "demanding" those. In order to weaken the regulation of tracking. If they are successful (and they are making progress) "no more cookie banners" is a lot better headlines than "more tracking"