148
edits
Cookies:prompting ui: Difference between revisions
→How do we make it more better?
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
Doing two pageloads some fraction of the time would use more bandwidth. It's better UX for the case where a user opens many tabs that don't need cookies in the background, but probably worse for the case where they do all their browsing in one tab. (There's an extension called [http://www.umeshshankar.com/doppelganger/ doppelganger] that takes this one step further, and concurrently loads a link i) with cookies and ii) without cookies, compares the data served up, and enables or disables cookies based on whether the content differs.) | Doing two pageloads some fraction of the time would use more bandwidth. It's better UX for the case where a user opens many tabs that don't need cookies in the background, but probably worse for the case where they do all their browsing in one tab. (There's an extension called [http://www.umeshshankar.com/doppelganger/ doppelganger] that takes this one step further, and concurrently loads a link i) with cookies and ii) without cookies, compares the data served up, and enables or disables cookies based on whether the content differs.) | ||
What do we do for cookie requests that have no associated page? (Safebrowsing, AUS, OCSP certificates, xpinstall, sidebar extensions, other random cookie-loving extensions.) We may have to keep a modal dialog around to deal with these cases. Or just always allow them? | |||
Maybe we could use infobars in a sync way? Just make the dialog a nonmodal infobar instead so it's less intrusive? Not sure if this can be done, but basically falls under 1) and amounts to timeless' rant linked above. | Maybe we could use infobars in a sync way? Just make the dialog a nonmodal infobar instead so it's less intrusive? Not sure if this can be done, but basically falls under 1) and amounts to timeless' rant linked above. | ||