331–340 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t Firefox and Safari also have a single bar for searches? Yet neither company runs a search engine. I don’t suppose it’s possible this is just better for most users?
Firefox will allow you to search via the address bar, but it still has a separate search bar to the right by default.
[1]:https://www.techworld.com/download/internet-tools/firefox-63...
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").
No this is simply bad implementation. As has already been mention, for internet services that also have websites for those services the www. subdomain makes total sense. > How will you distinguish http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org ? In the above case pool.ntp.org is a decades old time service, while www.pool.ntp.org is a website describing the service.
Yo, this is... going too far, c'mon now. While sure, www seems odd now, it's still a subdomain and we're inching into territory of obscuring things that matter for small gains in end-user perception that aren't _that_ impactful.
Yeah this is weird. Which users are bothered enough by the leading www enough to justify messing with semantics?
The UX of moving what I'm looking at instantly under click is very unpleasant too, www. and http and even the "secure" "not secure" banners is like 200px shifts. Lots of google's UI is getting (or has) things shifting instantly under the pointer it's quite annoying. The new gmail design quick-tools are often in the way, unknown until you actually click. Hell calling on my phone shifts the speaker and keypad buttons o…
> The UX of moving what I'm looking at instantly under click is very unpleasant too, Could you expand on this? What are you referring to?
Click in the address bar and the entire address is selected, then you click on any part of it to either select a part or to place your cursor in order to add to it, after which Chrome appears to first shift the entire URL to the right in order to show the protocol, then it places the cursor within the shifted URL under your pointer. This causes (attempted) selections to be established from some other place in the URL than the user intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's due to different groups controlling different parts of the infrastructure, allowing for separation of privilege -- and is the whole reason www even existed to begin with. Often these separate groups aren't part of the same organization. They're a different organization or contractor paid to maintain a web presence.
This is a classic example of techies, marketers and MBAs deciding what is "too confusing" for "normal" people to understand. This is why the History channel shows reality TV instead of programs about, you know, history. It was decided that "history" that doesn't involve celebrities, aliens or Nazis is just too boring for normal people. Google has decided that the 50% of population who are confused about the basics of…
But I'd prefer they did it in another way which doesn't involve hiding anything. For example, render the most important parts of the URL in bold type, a color that contrasts more, or a slightly larger point size.
That way, you still make it easier for the eye to pick up the parts that the browser believes probably matter most, but you don't make it impossible to see the parts that might also matter.
So basically a dumb design-by-committee change that just wasted effort for negative progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't this (partially?) solved by making the domain black and the rest of the text gray? That's how it appears in Firefox. It makes it very easy to see "ycombinator.com".
Is this specific to a version of Firefox, or an extension? I'm using Firefox 62.0, and I do not see a difference in color between the domain and the rest of the URL. (Windows 10, 1080p screen.) ETA: Holy crap, if I zoom into a screenshot, I can see the difference. My eyes cannot benefit from this feature under normal circumstances, though. Looks like black (#000000) and gray (#807D7D).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't this (partially?) solved by making the domain black and the rest of the text gray? That's how it appears in Firefox. It makes it very easy to see "ycombinator.com".
Is this specific to a version of Firefox, or an extension? I'm using Firefox 62.0, and I do not see a difference in color between the domain and the rest of the URL. (Windows 10, 1080p screen.) ETA: Holy crap, if I zoom into a screenshot, I can see the difference. My eyes cannot benefit from this feature under normal circumstances, though. Looks like black (#000000) and gray (#807D7D).