Yes, often if you share resources, the urls are quite long, and pasted into a messaging client, the result looks annoying. For this reason, an internal url shortener is included in several products, like Onlyoffice.
I think you would still end up with "Just put the article title as the URL" out of laziness a bunch too. Or because someone with decision making power doesn't like URLS that seem random.
For REST APIs standard would be /resources?query=something&offset=50&limit=50 etc for list of resources. And single resource.
/resources/:resourceId, so a bit different for APIs as opposed to user facing urls.
While for a single resource when user facing it would be /resource/human-readable-resource-slug.
The trend in browsers is to not display the URL, so who cares what it looks like? Mobile hides the address bar as soon as possible to regain the real estate. A certain desktop browser also received a lot of flack about only displaying the domain name rather than the path/query.
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.
The requirement to notify and give an opt out option regarding cookies is intended as a privacy improvement.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> but if I recall correctly it's plainly against the law for them to do this.
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.
Well, as someone who has cared about what urls look like[1] since the 90’s, I will rejoice the day I see the last cookie dialog (unless it also is my final day).
[1] It’s a way of communicating with the user. And yes, I often edit the address bar on my phone.
