The New York Review website has a fairly standard message, but, unusually, includes their brand image: It’s the same image they use as their profile photo on social media account (Twitter, Facebook).
It’s the only notice I’ve found that’s branded this way.
The Lyme Regis Town Council website illustrates a common issue: The website is not mobile-friendly, and the cookie notice is tiny. It’s the red rectangle in the top left of this cropped image.
This screenshot was made using an iPhone X screen dimensions, and it’s actually worse on actual desktops.
The Washington Post got the most unusual homepage since the GDPR came into force in May 2018, as it is the only instance I know of that assigns a financial value for tracking users.
Firstly, The Washington Post homepage is no longer what you expect of a publisher. No news headlines, no newspaper sections. Nothing apart from offering three options:
- A free browsing experience for a set number of articles, coupled with full consent for tracking.
- A subscription for $60/year that gives unlimited access but still coupled with full consent for tracking.
- A subscription for $90/year that gives unlimited access and has no third-party tracking at all.
Surprising as this may be to see a high-quality prominent publisher replace its homepage like this, we can do a simple calculation: according to the Washington Post’s subscription fees, the value of tracking users is $30/year.
CAU was a chain of restaurants in the UK that went into administration in July 2018. Its website had a rare UI element: an always-visible link to the privacy notice even after the user agreed to cookies.
On first load, the tracker consent notice is simple and clear enough: Options to accept or decline, with a link to learn more. It’s unusual, and refreshing, to find a clear way to reject tracking.
What’s interesting is the black bar visible behind it: It’s always visible and has a large link to the privacy notice. This bar remains visible even when the user accepts or rejects tracking cookies.
The EU Agency for Fundamental Rights is an interesting case that illustrates a common issue.
- Two things to note:
- The notice is very small, almost unusable, on mobile. The screenshot is taken on Chrome on Android.
It’s unusual to see a clear option for the user to reject tracking cookies, but no surprise an EU institution has that option.
The biggest shortcoming here is UX: make the notice easier to read and interact with on mobile. The touch targets for fingers to tap on small screens are a bit too small, and, more importantly, way too close to each other.