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

141–150 of 376 posts

Re: Burying the URL

#141

Post by ZoF »

nanidin wrote: post #134
paulirish wrote: post #121

This is a new UI experiment that's deployed to a small fraction of users. We're looking at a few key metrics to see if this change is a net positive for Chrome users. (I imagine it may help defend against phishing). My personal opinion is that it's a very bad change and runs anti-thetical to Chrome's goals. I hope the data backs that up as well. But regardless, this change is far from shipping as the new default beha…

Genuinely curious, what kind of metrics do you use to measure the effectiveness of a change like this?

I'm curious as well, specifically how would you go about tailoring those metrics to different features as they're released. Seems like that could be a pretty awesome/multi-faceted question to see the raw data behind.

That said, I sincerely hope that this particular anti-pattern's efficacy in converting people from typing in URL's to searching for websites isn't the most important metric.

Re: Burying the URL

#142

Post by blablabla123 »

paulirish wrote: post #121

This is a new UI experiment that's deployed to a small fraction of users. We're looking at a few key metrics to see if this change is a net positive for Chrome users. (I imagine it may help defend against phishing). My personal opinion is that it's a very bad change and runs anti-thetical to Chrome's goals. I hope the data backs that up as well. But regardless, this change is far from shipping as the new default beha…

It's funny that people say not relying on URLs would be anti-web. IMHO this causation is made only on a selection of empirical observations. In fact I think, you could also draw other conclusions from empirical observations.

Let's look at REST. Everybody is using it for HTTP APIs, or to be precise: everybody pretends to use it. Because, as many know, a REST API is only a true REST API, if it follows the HATEOAS paradigm. A paradigm which is in fact really cool. But why do we think it's cool? Because Roy Fielding found in his thesis that the (human) web is basically HATEOAS. He says the web is so successfully because of that.

But in reality... Hardly any HTTP API uses HATEOAS. In fact many popular APIs hide the HTTP stuff completely from the API consumers. (If everybody was using HATEOAS, we would never have to update the client libs, right?) Something similar goes for normal websites. Most URLs are not human readable, even HN is an example. The URLs are just numbers, there was even a post discussing that recently... Most News websites have even more complicated URLs, they are not made for humans and thus to me something like memory addresses. The GMail URLs (the webs most successful mail client) are also very funny looking, I wonder if there are users who manipulate the URLs by hand, or who bookmark their outbox.

I somehow like looking at URLs but am I supposed to edit them as an end user or draw conclusions from their look? (And is Google? ;))

BTW: URLs were interesting in the 90s for identification because only Geo Cities and friends had domains. Now everybody owns a domain.

Re: Burying the URL

#143

Post by the_af »

mewks wrote: post #24
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…

You seem to assume that people are looking to learn and grow their computer abilities. Learning takes an open mind, which isn't the case for most people. Ease of use enables the user to perform actions with more impact. Think of it as Python vs C. You need a lot more knowledge to get started with C, but you can customize almost every aspect of your program. With Python, you lose some customizability, but you can do a…

So much cynicism! My experience is that people do have an open mind, especially if encouraged to learn. With the trend towards turning computers into purely consumer appliances, the danger is that maybe most people won't even know there is something to learn.

Re: Burying the URL

#144

Post by jatoo »

You can still type a URL in when you want, just as easily as you ever could. You can still see the URL, presumably, by clicking the button. The only thing you can't do as easily is edit the current URL, which I rarely ever do.

Calls that this will 'break the web' are hyperbolic. You can still click hyperlinks. That's what makes the web the web.

URLs are untidy, even for technical users, and hiding them when not being entered won't hurt anyone.

Re: Burying the URL

#145

Post by rismay »

drgath wrote: post #119
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…

> I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I'm using Canary with this option enabled, and all you have to do is click the domain box, then you can freely view, edit, and copy the URL. All this update does is hide the path portion of the URL. That's it, so IMO, this story is way overblown. Google isn't removing the URL bar, they're just acknowledging the fact that 99% of users don't need to see 99% of the URLs they visit on a daily basis…

The only problem I see with this is the confusion between the search box and urls for most users.

I noticed my 10 year old brother trying to find a song the other day in a peculiar fashion. He simply typed in youtube and "genre name." He click on the 2nd link of the search results. Then clicking on the 3rd item of a side bar linking to a playlist. He was navigating the web through links provided by google like we use the directory system.

In this case, knowing the specific url would be mind numbing and utterly useless. However, the distinction between google and the web is just too blurred for so many people.

However, I think drgath's point is ultimately correct. For some people, there really is no internet besides Facebook. For some no internet without Google. Even crazier: I've met someone who does not know the internet without Siri.

If we hold onto things like the directory structure, then we couldn't have "advancements" in user interface design like iOS. Could we eventually get a web without urls like iOS is an operating system without a visible directory structure to end users? I think it would be a big win. The directory structure was replaced by single purposed apps. What will url's be replaced by?

Re: Burying the URL

#146

Post by wwweston »

general_failure wrote: post #107
cpeterso wrote: post #87

Chrome developer advocate Paul Irish says: 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. https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/461737936078123008

Unnecessary powerplay from Paul. And leaking information which is outright insulting to the 6(?) involved. This is a bad reaction for a developer relations guy.

Paul's words are pretty mild and don't reflect anywhere near as badly on those involved as the actual decision they made.

Re: Burying the URL

#147

Post by morgante »

morpher wrote: post #49
evv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about when you buy something online or log in to a web site? Do you not check the url before you give out your credit card details and website passwords?

From the article it sounds like Chrome is replacing the URL (which is difficult for humans to parse) with an "origin chip" that contains just the domain name. This improves on the use case you point out.

It's actually worse in some ways. The example I'm thinking of is Google Docs, which seems to be a very effective vector for phishing.

With this change, all you'd see is "google.com" which totally seems legit for providing your username and password, without the additional form URL.

Re: Burying the URL

#148

Post by gcb0 »

And i thought i hated chrome enough from ridiculing me every time i tried to copy only the hostname

Click url, it highlights the whole field, click again to remove undesired select all, now finally highlight the hostname, copy, paste on your ssh client and look like an ass for not noticing http was added to your clipboard out of freaking nowhere!

Re: Burying the URL

#149

Post by gcb0 »

drgath wrote: post #119
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…

> I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I'm using Canary with this option enabled, and all you have to do is click the domain box, then you can freely view, edit, and copy the URL. All this update does is hide the path portion of the URL. That's it, so IMO, this story is way overblown. Google isn't removing the URL bar, they're just acknowledging the fact that 99% of users don't need to see 99% of the URLs they visit on a daily basis…

How's the weather over Googleplex today?

while you're at it you might uninstall chrome and install ... don't even remember how the AOL browser was called... But it obviously was superior to any modern browsers with their lowly urls instead of AOL keywords.

Re: Burying the URL

#150

Post by brc »

Save the URL!

Phone numbers suck and are a usability nightmare.

But people are used to them and everyone understands it.

No URL - no decentralized web.

I understand why Google wants to place itself as the key search and directory for the web. I remember AOL Keywords 'go to www.webvan.com, AOL keyword : webvan', the ads would say on the radio.

But the web is just a bunch of content hooked together with URLs. Heck, websites are just a bunch of content hooked together with URLs.

I already hate sites that are not linkable or discoverable due to excessive postback-ing and unbookmarkable deep results.

I will always seek out a browser that displays the URL. There are ways to defeat phishing without obscuring the URL.

Post reply on HN