|
|
|
|
|
|
by papsosouid
5072 days ago
|
|
|
>That's what I dispute. Because you are taking it out of the context of the implicit "for a typical web app" that had already been established in the previous post. >I do agree with you that double opt in is You are still arguing a false dichotomy of "double opt in" vs "not double opt in". Double opt is entirely irrelevant. The only time I mentioned it was pointing out that it is not in any way a legal requirement. >My only point is that it's possible to have one Nobody said it wasn't possible. People said it is a huge usability flaw. |
|
|
I don't get that point. What's a typical web app? Most of those that I've built had in some way or another email connectivity. Many had a newsletter component somewhere that was used to inform users about new features/offers/whatever promotional content. Even more had the tentative idea of at least keeping the option open. And if you do that, you need to confirm the email address. So probably we differ on the notion of "typical" here and I guess that's a point that can't be resolved.
> You are still arguing a false dichotomy of "double opt in" vs "not double opt in". Double opt is entirely irrelevant. The only time I mentioned it was pointing out that it is not in any way a legal requirement.
Sorry, you kinda lost me here. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
> People said it is a huge usability flaw.
That's the whole point. IMHO it isn't that "huge" when you have double opt-in anyways. And as I pointed out that there are some reasons to have double opt-in regardless of legal requirements as well, in fact, most services that I signed up for use it. That might be different for you, but it's certainly not a minority or a freak occurrence if you encounter some service that uses double opt-in. So it can't be that bad either.
I fully acknowledge that you have a different view here, that's completely fine with me.