Probably the best site I have seen so far for allowing people to choose either way is the bt site www.bt.com
this site pops a window up at the bottom of the page which allows people to choose either way but if the users hasn’t checked either of the buttons it disappears and opts you in
I am not sure how legally complying this is but its the best visual method I have seen so far.
max
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
It’s a nice clean, pale toned window that certainly does not look threatening or scary so we should learn something from that max, but I would have to say that with my very limited knowledge, it is not compliant.
Implied consent is not acceptable and such phrasing should be limited to a terms and conditions of use page whereby the user has to click accept or decline, initiating the cookies or not as the case may be.
It certainly looks like there is a fine line between intrusive and compliant, but I’m sure we will find it.
I believe what we need is this:
An alert window in subtle tones so as not to alarm - perhaps with a cat in it 
Customisable text heading
Customisable message body
Cookie allowance options
Link to a Privacy Policy on the site
Link that can be applied in the Privacy Policy to relaunch the cookie acceptance window allowing the visitor to change their preferences - perhaps in time when users are more familiar with the cookie alerts they will have a new attitude towards them?
Simple code to wrap the cookie deliverers in on the page to allow them to load or not after the site visitor has made their choice.
A page reload if cookies are allowed to let the cookies in.
That’s what I think we need, but looking for your input and suggestions.
Al…
On 18 May 2012, 5:49 am, max wrote:
Probably the best site I have seen so far for allowing people to choose either way is the bt site www.bt.com
this site pops a window up at the bottom of the page which allows people to choose either way but if the users hasn’t checked either of the buttons it disappears and opts you in
I am not sure how legally complying this is but its the best visual method I have seen so far.max
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
David
On 18 May 2012, at 06:49, max wrote:
Probably the best site I have seen so far for allowing people to choose either way is the bt site www.bt.com
this site pops a window up at the bottom of the page which allows people to choose either way but if the users hasn’t checked either of the buttons it disappears and opts you in
I am not sure how legally complying this is but its the best visual method I have seen so far.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Popup windows etc. are all very nice, but remember that those who do not use JavaScript cannot be excluded. Your solution has to gracefully degrade. This means form processing and server-side script editing. Not happy news for many people here. No gleefully dropping an “I agree/disagree” cookie using just JavaScript for you, I’m afraid. Of course, the banner should really only be displayed to visitors to your site from the EU.
I also note that third party CMSes may also drop cookies - again for whatever purpose, and we are beholden on the suppliers of those systems to:
a) give a damn
b) supply a fix
Which also counts for any add ons and extensions that you may have installed.
It is an absolute mess, and I suspect not too well through out.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
According to PCPro, no fines:
[deputy commissioner Dave Smith] said fines were unlikely for cookies, as they wouldn’t meet the requirements for being “substantially distressing” to individuals. “We do not rule that out but it’s most unlikely that breaches of cookie requirements meet the requirement for monetary penalty,” he said. “In the area of cookies, it’s quite hard to satisfy the test for a fine.”
Read more: ICO: no fines for breaking cookie rules | News | PC Pro PC Pro Magazine | Subscription website
So - stand down on this subject?
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I think it’s probably my nature to be more ProActive than InActive and would still like to find a suitable solution.
Most of what I have read indicates that taking steps ‘towards’ meeting the standards, even if not fully compliant, will mean you are less likely to receive any form of immediate prosecution.
Suppose the ICO receives a complaint about your site and says you have 7 days to take action or take the site down, what then?
I know these are hypothetical, but it would be great to know we were working on some solution, even if it only put us some way towards full compliance.
A JavaScript solution would be seen as taking steps towards compliance rather than just ignoring it!
As you say, it may well just go by the way if everyone decides to ignore it, or it could be that cute little dog that has your fingers off when you were least expecting it.
I’m still up for a solution that informs site visitors in some way.
Thanks for all the feedback on this so far.
Al…
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
This post might calm the nerves a little bit:
David
On 18 May 2012, at 13:53, “Alan Herbert” email@hidden wrote:
I’m still up for a solution that informs site visitors in some way.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Morning.
Thanks for that link Dave. It’s nice to read an article that uses information gained directly from the ICO as most of the other articles i’ve seen have all been ‘hearsay’
It almost reads like a U turn on analytic cookies and the policing of the scheme.
So, as a final note on this subject - or until things change again is the consensus here going to be - Create a clear Privacy and Cookies Policy stating what cookies are used and why, and place it in the footer if not easily facilitated in the header / top section of the page?
Seems like a much easier solution.
Thanks to everyone for the input on this topic.
Al…
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Alan,
We recently took this approach with an update to the Softpress web site (http://www.softpress.com) and added cookie information to the privacy policy page (found on the footer of any page);
http://www.softpress.com/privacy.html
The text for the cookie addition was reproduced from the UK Gov site at Cookies on GOV.UK under the Open Govenment Licence. As I suspected other Freeway users may want to add similar content to their sites I wrapped the information up into a simple inline Action which can be found here;
http://actionsforge.com/actions/view/259-cookies-info
Insert the Action into the flow of text and either add the default CSS styles or add you own.
Regards,
Tim.
On 21 May 2012, at 09:37, Alan Herbert wrote:
So, as a final note on this subject - or until things change again
Tim Plumb
Creative Director
E: email@hidden
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 21 May 2012, at 09:37, Alan Herbert wrote:
So, as a final note on this subject - or until things change again
Seems like a much easier solution.
Hi guys,
Just to add to Tim’s post. None of the cookies generated when using built-in Freeway features can be considered malicious, harmful, or invasive. We feel it will be sufficient add a Privacy and Cookies page to inform visitors about cookies, what cookies are used on the site and why, and how to disable cookies.
We’re going to be writing a blog post in the next few days listing all the cookies created by Freeway (not including third party Actions). You will be free to use this list in your own Privacy and Cookies pages (which, if you’re using any of the features we list in the blog post, we recommend you all complete regardless of your location).
If you are using any custom code, or code from other sources, we highly recommend contacting the author of the code to find out if any other method of storing visitor information is being used (remember that this directive applies to online privacy in general, not just cookies).
Cheers,
Joe Billings
Managing Director
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Thanks Tim / Joe
I’ll grab that action and look at your own use of the privacy policy notification.
Hopefully this will keep us on the right path.
Cheers.
Al.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
I would like a page where you could be served real cookies… I have been
trying for years to get something good to eat out of my computer… all I get
are these plain, unfrosted donuts that are wafer thin and taste like
plastic.
–
Ernie Simpson
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Ernie - Those are still much better than the square cut licourice ones from days gone by, which were decidedly more floppy.
I would worry about my waistline if the amount of cookies i consumed was proportional to the time spent at my computer. At least that’s my browsers problem. Perhaps the EU Cookie Law should be nicknamed the ‘Browser Diet’ - wouldn’t sound so ominous then.
Al…
On 21 May 2012, 1:43 pm, The Big Erns wrote:
I would like a page where you could be served real cookies… I have been
trying for years to get something good to eat out of my computer… all I get
are these plain, unfrosted donuts that are wafer thin and taste like
plastic.Ernie Simpson
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Have just seen this message on this debate…
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Many thanks for this Tim; I’ve incorporated it into my current site. I noticed that you said " either add the default CSS styles or add your own" and I wasn’t sure how to do that, but before I could write and ask, I figured it out myself, and thought that others might want to know how to do it.
I opened the action in a text editor and noted the CSS selector names; the ones I wanted to alter were the bulleted list and the table font size. The bulleted list CSS name I used is ‘cookies li’, and the table font size is ‘cookies table td’. I made new styles in Freeway called #cookies li and #cookies table td, and styled them to what I wanted regarding font style and size, and it worked a treat. I just thought this might help any folks who are struggling to figure out how to edit the CSS for this action, as it isn’t immediately apparent. Thanks again for it!
On 21 May 2012, 9:21 am, TIm Plumb wrote:
Hi Alan,
We recently took this approach with an update to the Softpress web site (http://www.softpress.com) and added cookie information to the privacy policy page (found on the footer of any page);
http://www.softpress.com/privacy.htmlThe text for the cookie addition was reproduced from the UK Gov site at Cookies on GOV.UK under the Open Govenment Licence. As I suspected other Freeway users may want to add similar content to their sites I wrapped the information up into a simple inline Action which can be found here;
http://actionsforge.com/actions/view/259-cookies-infoInsert the Action into the flow of text and either add the default CSS styles or add you own.
Regards,
Tim.
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 28 May 2012, at 12:02, email@hidden wrote:
The bulleted list CSS name I used is ‘cookies li’
Actually, while I can flounder around with CSS quite nicely, I’m no expert. Should that perhaps have been ‘cookies ul li’? It works, regardless.
best wishes,
Paul Bradforth
Buy my eBooks at:
http://www.paulbradforth.com/books/
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Paul,
The idea of the default styles in the Action is that you can quickly style the information to look reasonable without having to set your own styles up in Freeway. This won’t be to everyones taste so you can choose to either add your own named styles in the Edit > Styles dialog and overwrite the default styles or start from scratch and style everything the Action creates.
The only issue I can see with changing the default styles in the Action itself (which will also work) is that you may need to adjust (or overwrite) these for different sites you use the Action on.
Regards,
Tim.
On 28 May 2012, at 12:02, email@hidden wrote:
I noticed that you said " either add the default CSS styles or add your own" and I wasn’t sure how to do that, but before I could write and ask, I figured it out myself, and thought that others might want to know how to do it.
Tim Plumb
Creative Director
E: email@hidden
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Paul,
Either will do the job. Both should work as well as each other in targeting the list items in the cookies div.
Regards,
Tim.
On 28 May 2012, at 12:10, Paul Bradforth wrote:
Actually, while I can flounder around with CSS quite nicely, I’m no expert. Should that perhaps have been ‘cookies ul li’? It works, regardless.
Tim Plumb
Creative Director
E: email@hidden
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 28 May 2012, at 12:18, Tim Plumb wrote:
Hi Paul,
The idea of the default styles in the Action is that you can quickly style the information to look reasonable without having to set your own styles up in Freeway. This won’t be to everyones taste so you can choose to either add your own named styles in the Edit > Styles dialog and overwrite the default styles or start from scratch and style everything the Action creates.The only issue I can see with changing the default styles in the Action itself (which will also work) is that you may need to adjust (or overwrite) these for different sites you use the Action on.
Hi Tim; just for information—I didn’t want to mess with the internal CSS of the action itself, so I made new styles in Freeway that would override the default CSS in the action. Just thought that it wasn’t immediately obvious what the CSS selectors were called without opening the action in a text editor, so thought I’d put in my two penn’orth.
best wishes,
Paul Bradforth
Buy my eBooks at:
http://www.paulbradforth.com/books/
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi Paul,
No, this is perfect. I’d initially read your email incorrectly and assumed you were updating the Action which, as mentioned, will work but has limited appeal.
I’m glad you got this sorted in the end.
As a side note I hope that in future Actions like this can create their own styles and have them show up in the Edit > Styles dialog for inspection and modification.
Regards,
Tim.
On 28 May 2012, at 12:26, Paul Bradforth wrote:
Hi Tim; just for information—I didn’t want to mess with the internal CSS of the action itself, so I made new styles in Freeway that would override the default CSS in the action. Just thought that it wasn’t immediately obvious what the CSS selectors were called without opening the action in a text editor, so thought I’d put in my two penn’orth.
Tim Plumb
Creative Director
E: email@hidden
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options