2 bobn Jul 31, 2015 00:06

@zebulon Thank you for the direct link.
Quick aside: Do we agree that the EU has produced one of the shittiest laws ever here? (and I claim political immunity here, I am resident of the EU).
"Yeah let's annoy all users of the world, 150 times per day. Every site they visit will give them a popup right into their face! You can thank us later!" ... just by the time advertisers have finally given up on shoving popups into our face, now the EU makes it mandatory!
So now I vented on that crap piece of legislation...
Do we agree we want to make this the least possible intrusive for the user? Or do you actually want the most annoying possible popup in the face of the users?
We'll implement something to comply. (Just want to inquire what flavor of annoyance you'd like us to implement ;)
Just know that in the meantime, if you're worried about Google, you can find javascripts you can paste into your <head> and in 10 seconds you'll have annoying popups on your site.
PS: oh, on the link you sent, the EU actually provides a "Cookie Consent Kit" (aka "User Annoyance Kit") you can use...
We'll probably package that one into a plugin with one click activation.
Oh wow ... I did not know this ...
This is interesting posts you have there ... so, I went to look this "User Annoyance Kit Cookies" up ... and found this
is this the right information that you all talking about ?
If I am wrong or misunderstanding that ... then what exact this "User Annoyance Kit" use for ?
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/02/01/how-to-deal-with-cookie-notices-on-websites-automatically/
I have to go read the details of the law tomorrow but I think it's along the lines of "cookies are bad; cookies are radioactive; users are innocent; users need to be protected from bad harmful radioactive cookies; all web sites of the internet must put up a warning like: `if you click "ok" instead of leaving this site right now, the bad radioactive cookies will cause you harm and maybe track you until death follows.`"
Maybe it's a bit more subtle than that... I'm not sure...
I have to go read the details of the law tomorrow but I think it's along the lines of "cookies are bad; cookies are radioactive; users are innocent; users need to be protected from bad harmful radioactive cookies; all web sites of the internet must put up a warning like: `if you click "ok" instead of leaving this site right now, the bad radioactive cookies will cause you harm and maybe track you until death follows.`"
Maybe it's a bit more subtle than that... I'm not sure...
that makes sense ... steer clear of a dangerous path to bring a healthy future to present :)
So actually if you go thread the page, it's not actually clear that it's a law and not just a recommendations. It is a law for official European sites to use that stuff. Not clear for private sites.
Then the majority of cookies (session ID, etc) are actually exempt from requiring consent.
Ad network cookies like google's Adwords create the problem. They should bring the solution with them. they could actually include a solution into their own JavaScript...
Anyways, we'll make a plugin for those of you who want to annoy their users with this ;)
Thank you for your replies.
Yes, I agree it is annoying.
On one of my sites I use google adsense. That is the reason I guess I got the mail.
I thought somewhere to have read that cookie popup are only mandatory for commercial sites of activities and not for cookies that one uses for the functionality of a site, such as collecting analisis data of website traffic etc.
So something of a plugin to put it ON/OFF would be the best I think.
Maybe in this form?:
- 'cookie warning' informing that cookies are only used for website (traffic) analisis/funtionality
- 'cookie s*** warning' for commercial activities.
Commercial site try to hide the true intent (in my oppinion) of why they need to accept cookies (like user experiance). I thing b2evo could stand out to present a more honest reason.
That gives a clear intention as to why a user may be 'tracked'.
Kind regards
Is this only for domains registered with EU physical street addresses? Or is it for any sites hosted within the EU? Or is it also for sites outside of the EU? What if someone has a .de domain but the site is hosted with a webhost in Texas? Or a domain registered with a street address in the USA but hosted with a webhost located in France?
As for format, the least visually intrusive would be preferable. Maybe even something as small as the control panel bar you see at the top of a b2evo blog when you're logged in.. something that drops into view until accepted or declined and takes up as little screen real-estate as possible.
jj.
@jibberjab you might find answers here: http://www.cookielaw.org/the-cookie-law/
And also: https://gigaom.com/2012/05/25/cookie-law-explainer/
We have spec'd a plugin (a simpler version than the EU consent kit which is actually very complex) and it will likely be distributed with b2evo version 6.7 (not a firm announcement)
Thanks, those links answered my questions.
UPDATE: the cookie consent plugin will be bundle with b2evolution 6.7.0
UPDATE: the cookie consent plugin will be bundle with b2evolution 6.7.0
Isn't it in version 6.6.7 too?
The eu cookie plugin in version 6.6.7 has a bug - most of the "OK"-button is outside of the website's right margin - you can see it on the screenshot below. I'm using b2evo in version 6.6.7, the default settings of this plugin and the skin tealpro.
Yes we decided to add the plugin also to 6.6.7.
No it's not the plugin that has a bug it's the skin that has awful CSS.
You need to use a more modern skin or add CSS to adapt the display of the cookie info to your skin's CSS.
I know it's awful, but the plugin can hardly know about all possible skins it might be used with.
Good luck getting a reply, any type of reply.
THIS IS AN IMPORTATION ISSUE, whether you are based in the UE or not.
The UE cookie requirements should be addressed, immediately, by the developers and those who maintain of this software. It should be the top priority.
If they can't figure out a way to resolve the issue, it indicates that they are not sufficiently competent to support the software.
@zebulon wrote earlier: