Take the 2-minute tour ×
User Experience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for user experience researchers and experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Some approaches of creating a distributed fault tolerant site are much easier when relying on enabled cookies at the user side.

How bad is in practice to rely on enabled cookies for user logging in and "write" operations like creating/ updating a post?

Is the number of potentially affected users quite small for a general purpose user contributed site?

share|improve this question
    
There is no even remotely good alternative to using cookies for maintaining state on your site. How exactly would you achieve something like logging in and using the site without cookies? –  Charles Boyung Aug 23 '11 at 5:04
    
Session id in url + session object in DB or other storage. But it requires expensive (in some cases) synchronization for the distributed storage. –  Sergey Aug 23 '11 at 20:28
    
So you're going to append that session ID to every URL in your site when rendering? And URLs from external sources (like, for example, emails that you send your users) will not keep them logged in. Like I said, there is no remotely good alternative to cookies for maintaining state. There are plenty of BAD alternatives, but none that are good. –  Charles Boyung Aug 23 '11 at 21:11
    
Also, you should be storing most things in the DB or other storage anyways for a session. Passing everything back and forth via cookies is both insecure and resource intensive. –  Charles Boyung Aug 23 '11 at 21:12
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In practice? I suppose it'd be near-impossible to argue against a yes answer to your initial question.

Fig. A: Gmail, Attempting to sign into Gmail with cookies disabled in your browser will return some form of this message:

Your browser's cookie functionality is turned off. Please turn it on.

A quick trip around the internet will invariably agree that you may rely on cookies to handle/assist in logging a user in, for example. At this point (arguably to our detriment) cookies have found a pretty comfortable spot in our codebases.

share|improve this answer
add comment

There are a lot of different ways to look at this, but I'd recommend an approach of "graceful degradation" where cookies are used in ways to improve the user experience but not in a way where the site does not work at all if they are missing.

It seems like you're already concerned about this, based on the way you're writing up this question. If you think some of your users won't have cookies enabled (which is likely) , don't design a solution to completely exclude them. However, if you can make it better for everyone else- go for it.

share|improve this answer
    
Exactly how do you propose maintaining state for a user without some form of cookies enabled? I also disagree with your belief that some users won't have cookies enabled - cookies are ubiquitous with web browsing at this point. Ten years ago, maybe not, but now, definitely. –  Charles Boyung Aug 23 '11 at 5:03
    
Given the OP's concern, I was assuming he or she had some basis to believe a non-trivial number of users would be impacted by disabled cookies. I agree they are very well established these days, although there are some interesting new EU laws that may make cookies legally sketchy choices. –  Rain Aug 24 '11 at 5:03
    
Then I ask you the same thing as I asked the OP - exactly how do you propose maintaining state in a web application without cookies? There is no other solution that is even close to a good solution. –  Charles Boyung Aug 24 '11 at 13:07
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.