411–420 of 919 posts
Why does this matter? Users don't care and its easier to remember/understand that all websites are just "x.com" rather than sometimes being "www.x.com". If you have some server/troubleshooting/network/dev problem with it, the missing info should be moved to developer tools. This is just removing data that is useless and confusing to 99.9% of users - whats the problem?
Curious, why did www.foo.com become the standard instead of using the apex/root foo.com domain? Was this because of the DNS limitations of using CNAME records at the apex/root?
the amount of assumptions that browsers make nowadays is really getting out of hand. Chrome on my work laptop doesn't even bother resolving a name that certainly does not look like an url but exists in the network. Instead it will look it up on (guess what?) Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is certainly subverting the domain name system. I can't see the value or gain in security by this. (If you want to put focus on the domain, then display the host-part with less contrast, i.e. grey, but don't hide any potentially vital information. Otherwise, put out a RFC, defining "www" as a substitute for "*", or a zero-value atom, in order to guarantee consistent behavior.) Edit: There are also legal concerns…
The reason why Google is doing this is because they are slowly trying to do away with URLs, as direct traffic is probably their greatest untapped segment. Google is trying to get users to go through their doorway pages, which is exactly the kind of thing for which they penalize publishers. Pay attention to when you enter direct addresses, let's say from a device/media subscription authorization page. The autosuggesti…
As a comment reads there, do they want to reintroduce AOL keywords?
Edit: May we expect a non-standard subdomain "google-remote", which is more of a protocol-extension and will be also hidden?
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…
Will they? I find it very unlikely that many users would even check the URL in the first place, let alone understand that m.foo and foo route to different places.
> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…
If only we had something other than the subdomain to indicate what protocol we want to use to access the host in question. Like maybe some kind of... port number and/or protocol prefix. "www." is useless. Eliminating it wouldn't be a bad thing. "m." for mobile sites is extremely archaic. Sites should work on mobile without special subdomains. If you issue subdomains to strangers on your root domain, the URL bar showi…
> If you issue subdomains to strangers on your root domain, the URL bar showing the subdomain shouldn't be your "security model."
What do you propose instead? Azure gives me custom subdomains for my servers that are immensely useful, being much more regular and memorable than IP addresses. I only see two solutions here: stop doing that or let anybody with access to subdomain creation pretend to be "azure.com". One of them is comically dangerous and the other is throwing out a perfectly good feature to save a handful of characters in the URL bar.
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 switched to firefox a year ago. Its a little slower, but im a lot happier. 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.
Still..with Google's horrible AMP efforts this seems nice :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually Google's long term plan is to do away with the URL completely, they just haven't figured out how yet. https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/
We're always going to need to see URLs. They're not going away. They're just talking about a better default view to show the user relevant information about where they are, which would be a good thing. Being generous, maybe half of users can look at a URL and immediately identify the domain they are on. That's terrible, and goes a long way to explaining why phishing attacks are so prevalent. I'm actually pretty excit…
I can see the future now: User enters his target (mybank) into the Google search bar on his Google Android device, the device opens Google Chrome with the Google amp page form mybank already loaded. The user never has to worry about urls or where exactly he is entering his banking information and login critera. Google makes everything a clean and seamless experience and user never has to leave its warm embrance.