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

Burying the URL

allenpike.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 376 posts

Re: Burying the URL

#91

Post by frozenport »

greggman wrote: post #88

This may be the reason I stop using Chrome even though I was a member of the team for 5 years. 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 U…

Also gramma is gonna be sad when I give her a URL and she won't know where it goes.

It is not clear if they are dumbing the web down for users or just to get people onto Google search.

Re: Burying the URL

#92

Post by aembleton »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #62
misterpib wrote: post #18

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?

If I got a phishing email it might ask me to login to my Halifax Bank account and provide a link. This link could be to Halifax.com.sh.ly/login or some such thing.

As an end user I might see the Halifax part of the url at the beginning of the address and feel comfortable entering my credentials. If this was hidden and all I saw was sh.ly then I'd know I was on the wrong website.

You and I might be comfortable seeing that from the address bar right now but I expect 80% of users would struggle to see that.

Re: Burying the URL

#93

Post by comex »

kijin wrote: post #70
jpatokal wrote: post #45

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…

Let's take the automobile analogy further. A browser that doesn't show the exact URL of a page is like a car with a built-in GPS that doesn't show the exact location where it's at. After all, who cares about street addresses? The address is occuplied by a Starbucks and we're in Mountain View, so let's just show a Starbucks logo surrounded by a shape that vaguely looks like an outline of Mountain View. You want to go…

You could argue it's instead like a built-in GPS that doesn't display your exact latitude and longitude - precise information about your location that is interesting, but usually not useful, since you have to take roads/links to actually get from point A to point B.

Re: Burying the URL

#94

Post by reidrac »

tszming wrote: post #29

I worry it will be the same as last time they removed the http from the url: Users: Okay, you removed the http from the url by default, but can I have an option to disable it? Chrome: No, just accept it https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467

It's funny that I have 6 open tabs right now and all them are https: so it its shown. After reading your comment I thought they had reverted that stupid decision, but they didn't :)

Re: Burying the URL

#95

Post by logicallee »

(This has now been removed, according to an update by the author.)

The fundamental idea isn't all that bad. But look, even in the 300px image you still have room to show more:

http://i1.wp.com/garybacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sc...

le.

So while I know I want to enter a new URL or search about 20x as often as I want to edit or copy the current URL, and, therefore, I am fine with needing to click somewhere else to "view or edit" the URL (default being that the search becomes blanked) - on the other hand, no reason I shouldn't glance a the full URL by default.

So I suggest that you show the URL in light grey and clicking makes the field clear, but berhaps the domain name could be darker, and clicking that part will meke the whole field editable/copyable etc.

It's a subtle difference but it could work.

I'm certainly glad they reverted.

Re: Burying the URL

#96

Post by aragot »

userbinator wrote: post #12

I somewhat expected this, given the trend of where things seem to be heading with software these days. In the name of "usability" configuration is removed, UIs are "simplified", and gradually the choice and freedom of the user is degraded. Opportunities to make mistakes and learn from them, or to explore and discover, a chance for users to grow . Dumbing-down software only encourages more of the same. The "senior try…

Ubuntu practiced configuration removal and I dropped them.

One of the 3 reasons why I dropped Ubuntu for Mac OSX was that Ubuntu... didn't allow me to configure my mouse speed. They "merged" the speed and acceleration control of the mouse (which is quite unclever) and also prevented it fom going <1, while I'm usually comfortable at 0.25. It made my tracking devices unusable, thus it made Ubuntu unusable.

Re: Burying the URL

#97

Post by bagels »

frozenport wrote: post #91
greggman wrote: post #88

This may be the reason I stop using Chrome even though I was a member of the team for 5 years. 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 U…

Also gramma is gonna be sad when I give her a URL and she won't know where it goes. It is not clear if they are dumbing the web down for users or just to get people onto Google search.

There's already a usability problem with the address bar: Many people use it to search google instead of entering urls.

Re: Burying the URL

#98

Post by ripperdoc »

Would be great to see a proposal for some next generation, semantic URLs that are more userfriendly (e.g. less machine friendly). With new TLDs, hashtags and search terms in ads the traditions are already being broken down. Why can't an URL be like a search string, just with some formal language behind it to make it standard?

Re: Burying the URL

#99

Post by noisy_boy »

canadev wrote: post #69
jpatokal wrote: post #45

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…

I remember talking to a friend who owns a Mercedes recently and he was telling me how he had to take his car into the shop and they gave him a fancy loaner (an ML 63, IIRC). He talked about all the cool gadgetry in there like blind-spot monitors, side rear view mirror wipers, and such. He also mentioned that the cars are pretty much impossible to work on on your own since you need to have the right diagnostic equipme…

> and a well-tucked-away "Advanced" button that, having given the proper warnings, allows the user to poke around on the inside.

I simply don't understand that this point, which is bloody obvious, is completely lost on the so many UI (re)designers. I don't mind you simplify (and most of the time thats all we need) but what is the point behind cutting-off all access for good for those who wish to tinker?

For example in the recent Firefox 29 release, the add-on bar has been taken out. They might argue most of the people don't care about it and even though I disagree (I spent 20 minutes trying to put FoxyClocks (to display world time) everywhere else and it simply didn't fit), its ok as long as you put an option in the Preferences to turn it back on (I ended up doing that via installing an extension/add-on). I don't even mind if you turn the option off by default. It is incredibly frustrating to see the designers think that their way is the only way and their use case is the sole case.

Sorry to hijack your point but I suppose you made it well enough to elicit a rant.

Post reply on HN