Remove "Delete all board cookies"

[Louis7777]

And we make you the judge of whats silly and what not, right?

I wasn't being specific, although the cookie notice exists because of a stupid law indeed. And I really hope from the bottom of my heart that the ignorant people behind that law will be bombarded with cookie notices on every website that they will visit, on a daily basis.

In Germany - if I am not mistaken - they require an imprint page.

In USA it would be prudent to have a DMCA policy page if you have a community with lots of members who post stuff. And you also have to comply to COPPA (that is nonsense to me but at least it is buried in the ACP).

And probably there's other stuff required in other places of the world. And not every one needs it which can only mean... extensions.

Otherwise imagine phpBB with at least a DMCA and an imprint page residing at the footer next to "Delete all board cookies" and a cookie notice appearing on every page.

The user wants to see content, information, media, conversations etc. and a clean interface. Whatever law requires from webmasters to add useless stuff on their pages that distract the user from what he really wants, is most likely silly.

What's your opinion on the matter?

[DarkBeing]

......
In Germany - if I am not mistaken - they require an imprint page.

......

Correct, even thought it is not necessarily needed for a "personal" or "family" website (§ 5 TMG and § 55 RStV). The interesting part is, that the required "German" imprint page is actually also a EU-Regulation, which was new to me.

Article 5

General information to be provided

1. In addition to other information requirements established by Community law, Member States shall ensure that the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information:

(a) the name of the service provider;
(b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established;
(c) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner;
(d) where the service provider is registered in a trade or similar public register, the trade register in which the service provider is entered and his registration number, or equivalent means of identification in that register;
(e) where the activity is subject to an authorisation scheme, the particulars of the relevant supervisory authority;
(f) as concerns the regulated professions:
- any professional body or similar institution with which the service provider is registered,
- the professional title and the Member State where it has been granted,
- a reference to the applicable professional rules in the Member State of establishment and the means to access them;
(g) where the service provider undertakes an activity that is subject to VAT, the identification number referred to in Article 22(1) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment(29).

2. In addition to other information requirements established by Community law, Member States shall at least ensure that, where information society services refer to prices, these are to be indicated clearly and unambiguously and, in particular, must indicate whether they are inclusive of tax and delivery costs.

[A_Jelly_Doughnut]

Just thinking: If "Delete all board cookies" is implemented because of "legal reason in many countries",

No, this is not the case. The "delete board cookies" function does not allow you to browse cookie-free, therefore it does not satisfy any of the legal requirements. It just deletes them, and the next page you visit will set them again.

[bonelifer]

It's there to delete possibly corrupt cookies I thought.

[Pony99CA]

The link shouldn't be there, at the footer, on every page. It is verbose and it doesn't link to any informational or helpful page.

It's at the almost-very-bottom of the board, so I bet very few people even notice it, "verbose" or not. It seems like it would be much more work to figure out exactly where it was "necessary" and then customize pages to display it than to just leave it alone. If you don't like that it's a link that doesn't display anything, I wouldn't object to making it a button (and possibly displaying a "Cookies deleted" confirmation), but that's it.

Sorry, but I'm a bit peeved at all of the insignificant tweaks that people are proposing to software that's going live shortly (change this icon color, re-order this menu, etc.). If people can't think of more substantial things, they must think phpBB is almost perfect as-is.

On the other hand, I think that are many substantial changes that phpBB could use, like topics only viewable to the topic starter and staff, a "Can post links" permission, sort by topic creation date view, new profile field types, automatic groups (going to be an official extension at least), etc.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

And we make you the judge of whats silly and what not, right?

I wasn't being specific, although the cookie notice exists because of a stupid law indeed. And I really hope from the bottom of my heart that the ignorant people behind that law will be bombarded with cookie notices on every website that they will visit, on a daily basis.

In Germany - if I am not mistaken - they require an imprint page.

In USA it would be prudent to have a DMCA policy page if you have a community with lots of members who post stuff. And you also have to comply to COPPA (that is nonsense to me but at least it is buried in the ACP).

And probably there's other stuff required in other places of the world. And not every one needs it which can only mean... extensions.

Otherwise imagine phpBB with at least a DMCA and an imprint page residing at the footer next to "Delete all board cookies" and a cookie notice appearing on every page.

The user wants to see content, information, media, conversations etc. and a clean interface. Whatever law requires from webmasters to add useless stuff on their pages that distract the user from what he really wants, is most likely silly.

What's your opinion on the matter?

Yes, there are a lot of jurisdictions, which is why I created the Legal Settings Page RFC.

Steve

[Louis7777]

The link shouldn't be there, at the footer, on every page. It is verbose and it doesn't link to any informational or helpful page.

It's at the almost-very-bottom of the board, so I bet very few people even notice it, "verbose" or not. It seems like it would be much more work to figure out exactly where it was "necessary" and then customize pages to display it than to just leave it alone. If you don't like that it's a link that doesn't display anything, I wouldn't object to making it a button (and possibly displaying a "Cookies deleted" confirmation), but that's it.

Think responsive. That link eats up valuable space from the limited space that the footer has. Do we really need it on every page?

Sorry, but I'm a bit peeved at all of the insignificant tweaks that people are proposing to software that's going live shortly (change this icon color, re-order this menu, etc.). If people can't think of more substantial things, they must think phpBB is almost perfect as-is.

This is for 3.2, obviously. And imo it is not an insignificant tweak since it is another tweak to make phpBB look cleaner.

On the other hand, I think that are many substantial changes that phpBB could use, like topics only viewable to the topic starter and staff, a "Can post links" permission, sort by topic creation date view, new profile field types, automatic groups (going to be an official extension at least), etc.

All in good time?

[DavidIQ]

Think responsive. That link eats up valuable space from the limited space that the footer has. Do we really need it on every page?

It's already behind a menu...

[Louis7777]

It's already behind a menu...

If it weren't for that long link, perhaps there would be enough room to show at least one link at the footer.

[DavidIQ]

It's already behind a menu...

If it weren't for that long link, perhaps there would be enough room to show at least one link at the footer.

That's not a very good argument. The other links in the menu are shorter yet they're in the same menu. Fact is that it was decided all footer links would go into this menu to make it look cleaner, as you probably know since I believe you were involved in the UI cleanup discussion. Making it look cleaner seems to be your same goal but already implemented without getting rid of functionality. Your reasons for removing it don't seem to be very compelling so far...

Of course if the fact is that this is no longer useful then maybe it could be done away with since most browsers play nicer with cookies these days, but you'd have to do some research as to why specifically this was added in and if it's ok to remove now.