Trying to ensure the best user experience and limit any webcompat issues. Just because we can hide a cookie messgae with a CSS element, doesn't mean it should be the best solution. We have many tools to counter these GDPR/CPPA Cookie consents, as list authors we need to check which option is the best.
- Generic cosmetics (generally avoided to avoid more widespread false positives)
- Specific cosmetics (better
- set-cookie, set-local-storage-item
- trusted-set- (for more complex additions)
- Broken scrolls
- Overlays
- Mouse clicks not working
- Allow embedded social media and embedded video to work
- And double/triple checking implemented rules work.
How should a cookie consent be addressed?
- If the scroll bar is not disabled
- No overlays
- The cookie consent popup is just a simple element, unlikely being checked by a website.
- If the site functions normally with the cookie consent shown in the foreground.
- When implemented go through the Checklist to ensure no breakage.
- If the cosmetics requires permission to access the site
- If there is extensive "Customise" or "Options".
- Or no option to disagree, and only Agree.
- Using a consent manager service
- Embedded options like social/youtube would still be shown
- Check 2-3 pages to ensure rule doesn't cause issues, anything usable.
- Check scroll and mouse click works.
- When adding a "new" consent script, check that current rules/and previously (via git log/blame).
- Check embedded items like social media and videos work.
- Check other adblock extensions like uBO and/or Brave to ensure the site isn't already fixed.
- Banks, Financial, Travel websites should mostly/always be used using set- or trusted-set- rules, given the importance.
- TLDR: If there is a chance that we're not sure of website breakage, move to a set- or trusted-set- rule.