871–880 of 919 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you may be surprised to learn is that Chrome isn't just stripping "www." from the beginning of the subdomain. "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com"
Today is a great day to own www.com
So stuff.www.com shows as stuff.www.com
But www.www.com shows as www.com
How immature to submit this as a bug. It was obviously an intended feature.
However it was intended by the developers is irrelevant to the average user using the product. To many many people this is a glaring bug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Low-tech users don’t often understand that a difference could possibly exist between “m.” and “www.” at all. However, if it shows the TLD, they can confirm it says “google.com”. Imagine they’re visiting a Paypal phishing link, to the domain: www.paypal.com.www.com The most important thing to show the user is “www.com”, because they’re expecting “paypal.com”. All the rest is nonessential for protecting users from bad…
This is not a feature. Make users understand this, don't hide it, make the main domain glowing green, wash out the rest, anything, but this trend of hiding complexity will only lead to severe undereducation on the topic, and, eventually, it will reach professionals as well, who also won't understand, what they should.
Reducing information density is a critical component of automobile safety measures. Dashboards in cars just prior to the "screens everywhere" era have been boiled down to the essence of what's necessary for a human being to operate a vehicle safely and without putting others at risk: One bright line showing speed, one bright line showing engine speed, one bright lint showing fuel remaining, and a few multicolored status icons; and then, a central info display where any logic more complex than "push to show next value" requires parking the car.
EDIT: Changed NAME to AOL KEYWORD.
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.
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.
Upvoted from Firefox. Only reason I use Chrome nowadays is when apps launch it directly (whereupon I strongly consider uninstalling them) or when work requires it (... which is utterly ridiculous, and very likely why our web rendering performance and consistency is utter trash ).
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/4/16805216/google-chrome-onl...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is actually the main reason I cannot use Safari. Then I have good news for you! If you go to Safari's preferences and select the Advanced tab, there's a checkbox called "Show full website address" that disables this behavior and shows the full URL in the search bar.
Unfortunately this is not in Safari for iOS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. People already assume they are the same. And they have for 20 years. Nobody reasonable serves up different content on the two URLs. Anybody clueful redirects one to the other. The only reason they're separate is that a) the web wasn't dominant when it was introduced, and b) technology of the time made it hard to manage traffic in ways we can now.
> Nobody reasonable serves up different content on the two URLs. The third and ninth comments in the linked bug present real world examples of this behavior.
The 3rd is about pool.ntp.org, which is a random ntp server, and which shouldn't be serving up web content. They did happen to pick www.pool.ntp.org as the URL for the docs on the NTP Pool Project, but if "www" never was a thing, the would have happily picked something else. E.g. poolproject.ntp.org or ntp.org/pool/ would have been fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can keep repeating your point, but if you want to convince me, you'll have to actually address my demonstration that the two are in fact not equal in practice.
From the bug report that started this thread: http://www.ntppool.org is not http://pool.ntp.org and https://citibank.com.sg is not https://www.citibank.com.sg and https://m.tumblr.com/ is not https://www.tumblr.com/ Yet Google makes them all appear to be the same. There are lots of other odd filtering behaviors in the issue if you want to check out the comments For example, should: www.www.www.subdomain.www.www.www.d…
As I mention elsewhere, the first two are bad examples. (In fact. ntppool.org and www.ntppool.org are the same thing.) The third is a hack from the era where responsive design, browser sniffing, and polyfills didn't exist. It should probably die too, but doesn't have to here. The m.tumblr.com name is distinct from tumblr.com and is of the form I think better. Note that they didn't use www.m.tumblr.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I literally began my comment by citing this: That comment seems to be a rebuttal to the point you're attempting to make. It'd seem more apt to say you brought it in to interrogate it, rather than to say you "cited" it, and beyond rhetorical frustration ("why would you do this?"), it's not clear to me that you engaged it at all. > It takes only a very small amount of thought and empathy with the average user to unde…
Are you ok, man? Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen the only thing approaching a concrete example of a problem is the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately. And your analogy betrays fundamentally confused thinking. Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting t…
As mentioned in the comment you're replying to here, at least half a dozen such claims with examples are in the comments on the issue/ticket that started this thread, the same one that you even pulled a quote from. They've also been invoked throughout the entire HN discussion. I'm not sure if you missed them, or if you're implying that examples such as singapore banks or m.tumblr.com are simply made up.
> Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting the city or state.
A building/floor analogy has its own issues, but it deals in enough of the same concepts as city/state/zip that it's serviceable if you prefer it as an avenue.
"1st floor" would indeed be extraneous (though correct) on single floor buildings, so sure, many people might choose to omit it from an address scheme on buildings with single floors. Plausible and not a problem in that case. And of course, people can add it for multi-story buildings where it's not extraneous. Finally, they can even add it on single story buildings if for some reason they're in the habit of using the convention, or if they don't know whether a building has multiple floors but know they want the first, and it's still technically correct and locatable in either case. And that strikes me as a reasonably apt analogy for the state of things before the change under discussion. Not a bad state of affairs really, unless someone wants to make a case that adding "1st floor" when uncertain represents a burden.
Now suppose one or more of the postal/shipping services mandate that "1st floor" is a trivial expression, and will therefore be hidden on all envelopes. Does that seem like a good idea? When an address is displayed for buildings that actually have more than one floor, who will know whether the 1st floor is implied? How will they know the floor wasn't accidentally omitted instead? Does the existence of these questions -- vs the question of whether to add 1st floor or not in the previous state of things -- and and any answers there may be really constitute an experience improvement for readers/writers of addresses?
> Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen
You know, that might be the sort of thing a keen intellect that's cutting through mumbo-jumbo would say, or it might be the sort of thing that someone who's not confident that their engagement with / responses to the arguments in play speak for themselves. Seems like a bit of a gamble about how it'd come off.