Yes, because urls are part of UX and should be as readable and meaningful as possible. It is not just about SEO.
I agree it's not always a mistake for a URL to contain an ID value of some sort. How else would online shops assign a URL to each product they offer?
While for a single resource when user facing it would be /resource/human-readable-resource-slug.
Also, if these are the same UX rules that have brought us worthless cookie screens, I'm not sure I'd put stock in their opinions, but that just me joey not-a-frontend-guy-just-a-user beercan.
Most cookie screens are deliberately designed as bad UX to make it very difficult to properly opt out and very easy to accidentally and permanently opt-in.
Here the main goal is to get rid of it fast, which more often than not leads to accepting all cookies the site offers. And bad cookie UX ensures that.
I would actually prefer to never see a cookie popup and then deal with privacy another way, if that was an option.
My fast route out is to close the tab. Same for auto-playing audio, distracting animations/video, and other irritations.
So far I don't think I've missed out on anything of significance that way. There are some sites that are useful enough for me to have spent time clicking tens of things, beyond that it turns out that I can live quite happily without the others.
This is true, but if I recall correctly it's plainly against the law for them to do this. Websites continue to do it because they're fully aware that enforcement is laughable.
Yes, though technically no. IIRC it is against the letter of the law to make it harder to opt out than to opt in. So this behaviour would be fine if it was at least as painful to opt in.
> Websites continue to do it because they're fully aware that enforcement is laughable.
Pretty much.
[1] It’s a way of communicating with the user. And yes, I often edit the address bar on my phone.