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

471–480 of 733 posts

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

#471

Post by amanaplanacanal »

cageface wrote: post #329
randomsearch wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome is the new IE. Some sites don’t work (well) with others browsers, so people are annoyed when the browser they are forced to use does stupid things.

This analogy would work if Google was deliberately holding back new features on the web to favor its proprietary operating system but in fact the situation is pretty much the opposite. I also don't understand why everyone is up with pitchforks at Google on this when Apple did the same thing to URLs a while ago. I guess engineers are just as susceptible to groupthink as anyone else.

Most people don't use apple.

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

#472

Post by taylus »

qwertox wrote: post #416
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…

I'm already annoyed by the hassle it has become to copy a substring of the URL into the clipboard, due to the schemes being hidden. Nothing has been won by hiding http(s):// as well as the www subdomain.

Them acting like this is some kind of user experience thing is the most insulting part.

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

#473

Post by rickisen »

mschuster91 wrote: post #447
AsyncAwait wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox's still an option.

Not for serious web development (dito for Safari): the developer tools are atrocious compared to Chrome, the battery life experience is way worse with FF, and while Chrome is a notorious CPU and RAM hog, FF is worse. That combined with both FF and especially Safari being way behind in terms of standards adoption/development really sucks at the moment. Chrome desperately needs competition.

In my experience FF is not behind chrome with new features. It's usually on par, or even better. Sure safari is annoying. But the developer tools in firefox are alright. I even find them better when it comes to debugging css stuff.

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

#474

Post by andrewprock »

marksomnian wrote: post #430
londons_explore wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt a non-default extension has extra permissions that aren't available to regular extensions... Can anyone reproduce this?

The extension ID is literally hard coded in the code of the scheme hiding code. https://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/master:c...

How a proprietary extension can get preferential features illustrates that chromium is open source in name only.

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

#478

Post by taylus »

birksherty wrote: post #49
enlyth wrote: post #14

At chrome://flags there is one called #omnibox-context-menu-show-full-urls, which I have turned on. This enables you to right click on the address bar, and turn on the option "Always show full URLs". It will always shows the full URL including the protocol, but I suspect they will remove this flag at some point.

Yes they always remove such flags later, does not matter if it's there right now.

Which is ridiculous, because there’s thousands of these flags for things they don’t have an agenda to see gone.

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

#479

Post by tchaffee »

nkrisc wrote: post #325
tchaffee wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing from blacklist and whitelist to blocklist and allowlist is one of the many small things we can do that makes our black colleagues feel seen, heard, and welcome in our workplaces. I support it. No one thinks changing language is enough to eliminate the systemic racism oppressing black people in the US. Eliminating that will require work and personal change. If you can't even stop using black to mean negative…

There are lots of real problems out there, but this is an imaginary one.

Already addressed in my original comment:

If you can't even stop using black to mean negative in the workplace and substitute it with more accurate words - the new words are clearer - then you likely are not prepared for the real work ahead.

I'll also add the problem is not imaginary. Microagressions are a well documented and well studied category of racism. You can find many studies with supporting evidence. While you might choose to critique the scientific rigour of existing studies, you would have to do that with your own counter evidence, and not with a dismissive "it's imaginary". You could start here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/174569161982749...

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

#480

Post by chrismorgan »

Jedd wrote: post #445
sorenjan wrote: post #332

I actually wouldn't mind if the URL bar was replaced with a breadcrumb bar on some sites, like news and forums. Imagine something like Example.com > Worldnews > 2020 > 06 > 14 > Big aquatic monster spotted outside of Tokyo or forum.example.com > Sport > Football > Spain > Real Madrid It could then work like in Explorer in Windows 10, where you can press one of the breadcrumb separators and see a menu with siblings, o…

> I actually wouldn't mind if the URL bar was replaced with a breadcrumb bar on some sites ... Which sites? Anyway, almost everyone else would mind. Especially if there was no option to revert to normal behaviour. > It could then work like in Explorer in Windows 10, ... That sounds like the worst of both worlds. If people want Explorer in Windows 10 behaviour - can't they just run Explorer in Windows 10? If people wa…

Note this is talking about Explorer, more recently named File Explorer, rather than Internet Explorer, the browser.
Post reply on HN