Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 919 posts

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#631

Post by muraiki »

trjordan wrote: post #548

It's technically correct that www.example.com and example.com are different domains and can serve different stuff. So are https://example.com and http://example.com . If you serve materially different content based on small differences, that's user-hostile, and common tools have no obligation to support you. Chrome shouldn't cater to sites that change behavior based on a www prefix, because the vast majority of users…

Small differences? A subdomain or an entire protocol is a small difference? And what about any web site that uses a "m." subdomain that doesn't intend it for mobile? I don't think that calling these things "small differences" is reasonable. And really, it makes perfect sense to not serve the same content over an insecure connection than over a secure one, but thankfully that change hasn't happened!

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#632

Post by will4274 »

abalone wrote: post #552
13415 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about as smart as hiding filename extensions, and the results will probably be similar. Increased confusion and more security risks.

I agree with the first sentence. MacOS has hidden extensions for... ever? And MacOS is generally considered the easiest to use and most secure desktop OS. So there you go.

> And MacOS is generally considered the easiest to use and most secure desktop OS.

Yup, that's why most non-technical users and also system administrators prefer it! (Oh wait, that's Windows and Linux)

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#633

Post by euske »

CmdrKrool wrote: post #464

Lots of people saying this is for the benefit of non-technical users. For me, this is a minor inconvenience, precisely because I'm technically capable/interested enough to handle the inconsistency. But this kind of stuff (and I am speaking somewhat generally here) tends to frustrate me, precisely when I'm trying to educate or deal with a non-technical user in some capacity where it happens to matter. I can't just tel…

I wholeheartedly agree with this. There are two sides of the debate now. One side says that the machines should be clever enough to guess the user's intention and go around of their mistakes, while the other side says that the machines should stay as dumb and square. The question is about who is handling the complexity of this world, and in my opinion it should be often left to the human, not to the machines.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#634

Post by philwelch »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #591
pests wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem shocked at this with word usage like "actual users", "real url's" and "actually no idea" But how are we to expect users to know any better until general technology literacy improves? Many people can't tell you the difference between a modem, router, OS, browser, or website. I remember years ago sitting down with my elderly grandmother trying to show her how to use a desktop... We are too close to our work so…

> "Many people can't tell you the difference between a modem, router, OS, browser, or website." They don't care, nor should they. How many people know how many spark plugs are in their car? You're correct. We, the more tech-literate, take too much for granted; and most experiences and learning curves are too far over the head of the "average" user. It's not them. It's us.

It's not about knowing how many spark plugs are in their car. It's more about buying a car that comes with a custom power adapter plugged into the cigarette lighter, never realizing that you can plug your own accessories into the cigarette lighter instead of buying your phone charger or GPS from the car company, and then not caring when they just take away the cigarette lighter and replace it with their own custom port.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#635

Post by muraiki »

slg wrote: post #335
subway wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but those are decisions made by whoever controls foo.com. This may not be a good decision by Google, but I don't think they should be held responsible for a decision that was made by whoever controls foo.com.

This is completely backwards, because Google just made this decision _now_!

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#637

Post by JoshMnem »

Looking at everything that Google is doing at the moment, it looks like a shameful power grab for the entire WWW.

I suspect that Google wants to gradually get rid of URLs, because if users can't identify websites by their addresses, they will be more dependent on Google Search. Landing on search pages means that users will click on more of their well-concealed ads.

I think it's also the reason why Google Chrome's URL bar has such terrible auto-completion functionality. It appears designed to send users to Google Search to click on ads instead of taking them directly to their destinations. Firefox's old address bar didn't do that. (The newer address bar in Firefox appears to be following Chrome's time-wasting functionality, and its auto-completion no longer works well.)

Without URLs, users won't know whether they are really on your site, viewing your content on google.com (via AMP), or in some kind of app or PWA. To get to an item of content, most people will end up clicking on an ad in Google Search or land on an AMP page that eliminates most monetization options that don't involve passing the money through Google's systems.

URLs shouldn't be trimmed at all. When you're on the URL, http://example.com/, (note the trailing slash), Chrome will only display "http://example.com", even if you copy it onto the clipboard. (It's still possible to fix it in Firefox with about:config.)

Technology shouldn't be made more restrictive and stupid -- users should be taught how to use technology correctly, and they will adjust. I've even met professional programmers who don't really understand URLs because their browsers mask the real URLs. The WWW isn't only about consumption -- it's about creating as well. People need to know how it works in order to create things.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#638

Post by muraiki »

josefx wrote: post #420
download13 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We're always going to need to see URLs. 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…

AOL keywords all over again. It's all about building a moat.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#639

Post by [deleted] »

NathanCH wrote: post #525
wingworks wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more on the website owners to fix their sites, users expect domain.com to be the same/auto-redirected to www.domain.com or vice versa. I think it's a good thing what Chrome is doing, it will push website owners to correctly set up their domain redirects and in the end, lessen end-user confusion.

I think this is a fair comment but Chrome has been doing this a lot lately. They'll make a change and developers must scramble to fix their websites. It's the same with autocomplete earlier this year. One day Google decides to ignore autocomplete="off" and all hell breaks lose. Interesting to note, they have reverted this change. Google now respects autocomplete="off" in some scenarios (i.e. when autofill is not trig…

[deleted]

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#640

Post by [deleted] »

NathanCH wrote: post #525
wingworks wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more on the website owners to fix their sites, users expect domain.com to be the same/auto-redirected to www.domain.com or vice versa. I think it's a good thing what Chrome is doing, it will push website owners to correctly set up their domain redirects and in the end, lessen end-user confusion.

I think this is a fair comment but Chrome has been doing this a lot lately. They'll make a change and developers must scramble to fix their websites. It's the same with autocomplete earlier this year. One day Google decides to ignore autocomplete="off" and all hell breaks lose. Interesting to note, they have reverted this change. Google now respects autocomplete="off" in some scenarios (i.e. when autofill is not trig…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN