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

Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 733 posts

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#291

Post by wolco »

butz wrote: post #62

While this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it…

Developers at least the experienced ones never left firefox. For the new developers who got hooked on chrome over the last 10/15 years time to move to a developer friendly browser.

At this point ie becomes more useful.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#292

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

distances wrote: post #269
cletus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"SJW" is a pejorative at this point because the key part isn't about the ideas being expressed but the motivations behind advocating those views. It implies that despite outward appearances it's all rather self-serving, a form of getting validation and superficial virtue signaling. So when you see major rewrites, major redesigns and controversial changes in popular products you'll often find an agenda behind it. Some…

> "SJW" is a pejorative at this point because the key part isn't about the ideas being expressed but the motivations behind advocating those views. Is SJW really seen as pejorative? In my mind it's a term used only by the alt-right, and usually if alt-right is trying to smear someone it's a good indicator the target is advocating a good cause. So I usually take SJW as a positive description.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJWs

(Social Justice Warriors) The overly offended blindly ignorant scum of the internet whom’st report anything and everything that offends them.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#294

Post by magicalist »

sk0g wrote: post #277
ohnope wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>SJW nonsense Uh, what? It’s changing the UI to hide parts of the URL. Look, I’d prefer it the other way too, but we have to choose the right words. The thought process shouldn’t be “I’m mad, what else makes me really mad like this? Oh yeah social justice workers. This UI change is therefore like social justice work.”

If anything, there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the cool kids call it, as it sorta falls under the inclusion initiatives. EDIT: I was clearly disagreeing with the parent badmouthing SJWs wrt accessibility...

> there's, from my experience, a good overlap between the SJW types, and the people who push for accessibility/ a11y as the coop kids call it

"Pushing for accessibility" is a pejorative now? What in the world is going on in this thread?

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#295

Post by chrisseaton »

andromeduck wrote: post #286
chrisseaton wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so what information is it even conveying? I feel like I'm going in circles. They're two different web pages. Possibly with entirely different information. Possibly run by entirely different people. Possibly with entirely different trust levels and threats. It conveys which of the two web pages I'm looking at. How is that not useful information?

All WWW was supposed to mean was HTTP accessible. Now that every domain why should a user using a http* browser have to specify that they intend to access it via http* when they have no other choice? Either the server responds or it doesn't. www.foo.com and foo.com both return http traffic then they are both part of the world wide web. The specific of how you've decided to run your site or serve your pages is irrelev…

I don't think you get it.

www.example.com and example.com might be two different websites.

If you want the content at www.example.com and you go to example.com, then may not get the content that you wanted. One might be a shop selling shoes and the other might be a shop selling hats.

If you want a hat and you go to the one selling shoes then you're going to be disappointed.

'www.' doesn't 'mean was HTTP accessible'. You can make any system HTTP accessible, or not if you want to.

It doesn't matter how you or I set up our websites, or whether you or I think it's a good idea to have different websites at these addresses, it matters how other people set up their websites and if they choose to do this or not. Some do! Therefore the user needs the information.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#296

Post by tchaffee »

onion2k wrote: post #128
butz wrote: post #62

While this might be useful for a casual user, hidden URLs are a huge problem for web developers. Asking for a screenshot from client is not enough, now I'll have to provide additional instructions how to copy/paste full URL when reporting issues. Not to mention all possible problems with misconfigured servers when www and www-less domains lead to same website, but some script refuses to work on one of those. While it…

If you're relying on bug reports to find why a page is broken you're in for a bad time because 99% of the time the user isn't going to report anything. They're just going to think your page is broken and stop using it. Use a telemetry and error reporting service like Sentry or Rollbar. These services can strip sensitive data on the client before it gets logged.

My QA team sends me URLs and screenshots sometimes. Often the first thing I look for on a screenshot is the URL.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#298

Post by buboard »

I don’t get the complaints. This frees up so much space for ads in the address bar. Besides, people are finally certified stupid after decades of dumbing down everything, and they can’t help themselves, and only google knows which site is good or bad. They could have gone with a greyed out url path , but that would be too confusing for users. They only exist to search, click on ads and scroll endlessly.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#299

Post by m0xte »

nerdponx wrote: post #167
m0xte wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ffs. I’m going back to gopher at some point.

Or just switch to Firefox...

Firefox is going down the toilet as well. Lots of me-too-isms are appearing.

Really my point was in jest. I think we need to trash the entire www and start again with something content only focused and hard same-origin policy and far far far lighter than what we have. I tried browsing the web on a dual core celeron N3010 recently and it was unusable on all mainstream browsers.

Re: Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar

#300

Post by paublyrne »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #292
distances wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "SJW" is a pejorative at this point because the key part isn't about the ideas being expressed but the motivations behind advocating those views. Is SJW really seen as pejorative? In my mind it's a term used only by the alt-right, and usually if alt-right is trying to smear someone it's a good indicator the target is advocating a good cause. So I usually take SJW as a positive description.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJWs (Social Justice Warriors) The overly offended blindly ignorant scum of the internet whom’st report anything and everything that offends them.

Urban dictionary can be useful for looking up pop culture terms, but it's not the place to go for canonical definitions ....
Post reply on HN