251–260 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)
After 20 years, the number isn't 99.9%. But: Should chrome redirect all DuckDuckGo queries to Google.com because 99.9% use Google anyways?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I recall, there are some reasonable dns-related reasons that one might prefer www (or any subdomain) to the bare name.
Modern solution to these issues is having SRV record on appropriate protocol sub-domain which AFAIK (and somewhat surprisingly) is honored by most modern browsers.
Considering a subdomain "trivial" is ridiculous... there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com". Not only can they serve different sites, they can even have different DNS records! It seems that "m." is also considered a trivial subdomain. So when a user clicks a link to a "m.facebook.com" uri, they'll be confused why FB looks different when the browser reports it's on "facebook.com". I sincerely h…
m. is where you often receive a feature degraded, app-walled, or sign-in walled website that isn't present on the full-featured website. I want to know that I'm receiving a degraded version of a website and that maybe dropping the m. will restore it.
Admittedly, it's not just "m", but If I _must_ use Facebook the only bearable version is mbasic.facebook.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.
They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?
Hiding it just seems like a trivial UI matter that makes things slightly more obnoxious when you do care.
I'd be surprised if only showing the domain vs domain+path made any difference on phishing results.
I don't think these little tricks do much for the user. For example, browsers now highlight https websites with green in the url bar and show a little lock icon. But how is that actionable information for the user? To what extent does that mean you can trust that website, and how does the average person interpret it? Phishing websites use https, too.
I would avoid stealing any pages from Safari's UI. That browser doesn't even show favicons on browser tabs to let you quickly distinguish them.
Considering a subdomain "trivial" is ridiculous... there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com". Not only can they serve different sites, they can even have different DNS records! It seems that "m." is also considered a trivial subdomain. So when a user clicks a link to a "m.facebook.com" uri, they'll be confused why FB looks different when the browser reports it's on "facebook.com". I sincerely h…
m. is where you often receive a feature degraded, app-walled, or sign-in walled website that isn't present on the full-featured website. I want to know that I'm receiving a degraded version of a website and that maybe dropping the m. will restore it.
I want to know I'm on a faster version of a website.
(Seriously, mbasic.facebook.com allows chat, whereas m.facebook.com reminds you to install the Facebook app.)
You're the second person recently to lament mobile sites on HN. I think they're great. Responsive isn't there yet.
Lest anyone think that Chrome is being innovative here, this is Safari's default behavior for when the URL bar isn't focused. When you click on the URL bar, the subdomain, protocol, and path all appear.
A much saner behavior is to hide the URL entirely until focused, not to show a secretly mangled version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> while foo.com and www.foo.com are controlled by the same people Sometimes. Far from always. In some environments, `www` may be under an entirely different administrative domain, with lesser authority than the top level domain which is delegating web services to the `www` group by way of creating a dns record and/or adding an http(s) redirect to the parent domain. Having some string values arbitrarily considered tri…
Isn't that simply due to internal politics? Whoever owns foo.com might delegate www.foo.com to someone else, but they ultimately control both.
Often these separate groups aren't part of the same organization. They're a different organization or contractor paid to maintain a web presence.
I'm ok with hiding "www.", but it also hides "m." which is sometimes very confusing (I once opened a m.facebook.com link and was very puzzled why it uses the mobile site when the URl bar just shows "facebook.com").
Facebook aside, don't the majority of sites show you mobile version by looking at headers. Isn't that the whole reason the "Show desktop version" feature even exists in Chrome, to send the desktop header? Very few sites actually use www. vs m. Clearly, in those cases, people aren't "confused" by the fact that they are seeing a mobile version on www., so other than the fact that you're used to Facebook specifically wo…
This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.
Ive been trying to degoogle as much as reasonable. I moved to fastmail as well. Still using an android, but would switch if a reasonable alternative that wasnt iphone came up. Im not paranoid or a privacy nut, just think google is too involved in my life.
This and many other changes over a course of a short period of time have caused me to go to Firefox exclusively now. I heard Firefox is going to stop third party cookie tracking altogether. Why not give Google the big finger and use a different browser? Vote with your cold hard actions if you feel so strongly about something.
I would love to, but Firefox just feels more clunky. Not sure what it is, but the scrolling doesn't feel native to me (MacOS, Magic Trackpad and Logitech Mouse)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?format=default&id=...
(there's a couple of hits when I search for 'scrolling' in that thread)