81–90 of 376 posts
He was exactly doing a research in how to remove the URLs from the user view, without changing the HTTP protocol.
Wouldn't this make it that much easier to phish non-power users?
The extra bits of the URL absolutely should be hidden from the user. Whether this method and at this point in history is going to turn out well is a different story since there are still a lot of hackers that like to edits URL to work around other problems (eg fixing broken links, trying to navigate a confusing site). Nonetheless, the clear proof that it should be hidden is that you don't purposely display the URL or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For kicks, try replacing "software" with "automobiles" in your paragraph. The innards of a modern car are incomprehensible to all but "the few elite", and its interface goes a long way to hide all that complexity. I only have the vaguest idea how it works, and am perfectly happy to outsource its maintenance to professional mechanics, because all I care about is that it works . This should apply to computers. My famil…
A car has a simple goal: get you from one place to another. A computer does not. It's a general purpose tool that is near infinite in scope and possibility. The analogy is a complete failure.
So they won't care about the technology stack, as long as that spreadsheet, text document, 3D image, .... can be edited, saved and printed or a game played.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think it would make it harder to phish. Since all you see is the domain name, it should be easier to tell if it's not the right one.
How?
this is terrible. From what I can tell only 6 people have been involved
in this so far. Going to do my best to stop it.
I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I need to copy and paste URLs. It was already annoying enough with it's removing of the protocol because sometimes I make a typo, try to edit it and it messes up and removes the protocol forcing me to edit it a 3rd time only after it goes as searches for something.
Even as just a user I copy and paste URLs all day long. Into FB, into Twitter, into stackoverflow answers, into HN responses.
I don't even see how this is better for Google. Links make up pagerank no? Links are what Google uses to be the best search engine. How is making it harder for people to copy and paste URLs good for Google?
I'm sure I'm in the minority as a semi-webdev but dammit, don't fix what isn't broken. Or at least give those of us with different use cases a way to get shit done without getting in our way. Sure, this may or may not be better for my grandma but it's not for me. I causes me frustration daily already. This is only going to make it anger inducing.
I think we found the answer. Chrome now looks like a half-burnt Firefox, with an emaciated URL in a separate box from what has effectively become a search bar. The same two boxes are there, only their sizes are reversed -- accurately reflecting the respective vendors' priorities.
Expect Google to make more changes along the same line. What, did you really think they were funding Chrome out of a kindness of heart? Now that Chrome is a leading (if not the leading) browser, it's time to make some money. Google is the new Microsoft. They have the power to change the web as it sees fit, but instead of safeguarding the open web, they'll try to replace it with a walled garden. After all, what good is a browser if people use it to visit URLs that don't begin with google.com?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old cars: you could fix it yourself. Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. I know which I prefer.
> Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. That really has nothing to do with what is being discussed though. The reliability and efficiency of modern cars are consequences of advances in technology and engineering, not user interface redesign.
In other words, just like modern cars, it's not as necessary to pay attention to the innards for continued operation.