[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Cookie Dialog (Konqueror)
From:       Edwin Steiner <edwin.steiner () gmx ! net>
Date:       2004-08-17 17:26:48
Message-ID: 20040817172648.GB13371 () kanada ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 10:09:27PM -0400, Jamethiel Knorth wrote:
> Further, if adequate information is available to explain the 
> cookie situation to them inside the dialog, they might actually be able to 
> make an informed decision right then and there.

I agree completely. If the user is not only helped but educated this
is ideal. If the users chooses not to read it, at least we tried :)
I do not see a way to provide an automated solution that is
sufficiently secure and does not break web pages.

> >> I disagree.  I think what would be even better is a smarter way of 
> >> handling
> >> cookie dilalogs, my policy is to at first never accept cookies and
> >> then only enable them if I absolutely have to (the page breaks),
> >> so I find myself clicking an awful lot of dialogs and there is no
> >> way around it.  It's a matter of principal, that I don't care for
> >> non-essential cookies being shoved down my throat.

I'll second that. You could disable cookies and then have a function
"enable cookies for this domain". The same would go for Java and
JavaScript. Could be *very* useful for the advanced user.

Konqueror does already have the required per-domain policy features,
all that would be needed is a quick way to add a domain with an
"accept" policy. (Or does such a function already exist?)

>From: Matt Rogers <matt@matt.rogers.name>
> >but this is your policy, not the policy of 90% of the users out there. most
> >users will just want their stuff to work and they don't care how it works 
> >as
> >long as it works (and works correctly, i might add). while, granted, this
> >might be insecure, the "normal" user won't care.

  While true, we should not IMHO yield to this way of thinking. There are
  too many people suffering from security breaches right now because a
  well-know software vendor used to think "our users don't care about
  security".

> >> What is so important to me that I need client-side state?  Usually
> >> nothing, or a misapplication/abuse.  One cases where I willingly
> >> use cookies is in storing prefs.  Dynamic websites usually suck in
> >> terms of usability, so if they "need" cookies, there are probably
> >> other problems with the approach taken.  There should also be a
> >> way to turn off refers for privacy reasons.

I'd like that, too.

-Edwin

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]