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

171–180 of 376 posts

Re: Burying the URL

#171

Post by einrealist »

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 are describing a natural process, that can be found in many places: the need for progression. If there is nothing more to invent, first lesser, then well established things become the target for change, so we can keep progressing. Companies do that to keep the illusion of growth. Organizations and people do that to keep their work.

For instance in politics, good laws become narrowed, twisted or get replaced because politicians have to keep their place in society.

Re: Burying the URL

#172

Post by noodl »

curiouscats wrote: post #46

I think it is a horrible idea. I would guess they will allow me to adjust the view to always show the url in which case I don't care. It is just one in a super long list of very bad Ux decisions by Google in my opinion. If they actually don't let me see it, I'll just use some browser that does.

Based on this similar issue where the status bar's display of the URL under the cursor is obscured for a second or so, it seems unlikely this new "feature" would be configurable.

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=59592

Re: Burying the URL

#173

Post by chronid »

snewman wrote: post #72
quanticle wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This should apply to computers. No, no, a thousand times no. What happened to cars - the replacement of mechanical, inspectable, (dare I say it) hackable components with electronic black boxes was not a good thing. You used to be able to fix and replace most things in an automobile engine with parts from the local auto shop and a shop manual. No longer. Now you have to spend hundreds or thousands to get the correct…

Old cars: you could fix it yourself. Modern cars: rarely need fixing; also much more efficient. I know which I prefer.

Are you implying that new cars rarely need fixing and are much more efficient because they are completely closed down and harder to work on than old cars?

Re: Burying the URL

#174

Post by anu_gupta »

greggman wrote: post #113
ohleg wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but for the time being you can still click on the actual button, which will let you view/edit the entire URL.

Actually that 'might' be ok. I'd have to try it. On the other hand seeing the URL helps me decide if I'm on the correct webpage. mybank.com vs pretendingtobemybank.com Of course I try not to click those links in the first place but I do look at the URL to check that some link I clicked took me to the right place. There's also plenty of apps I use where the URL is useful info. For example JSFiddle. If there's a /N in…

In the case of spoof/phishing sites, having the base domain be shown as it is in Canary might actually be helpful - instead of a long complicated URL that allows the scammer to camouflage their fake domain, the domain will be explicitly called out.

I don't hate this change so far (especially as clicking on the domain gives the full URL - although that's perhaps not very discoverable if you don't know about it already)

Re: Burying the URL

#175

Post by bagosm »

This has nothing to do with a UI improvement.

The change is just a way to force users to use the "share me" buttons so google can benefit by promoting G+ or controlling the flow any way it wants. Its a good way to keep track of user flow/spread of links whereas copy-pasting a link to an IM hides that information.

In general this change doesnt have to do with bad UI good UI just pressure to use a more controlled web experience. URLs are good UI, they have extra info and the more experienced user can even manipulate them to everyone's benefit

Re: Burying the URL

#176

Post by antr »

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 going to be a cinic: if the Chrome team sees that users use Omnibox/Google more to got to the desired URL, that would be a positive thing (for them). Why type the URL when you can go via uncle Google?

Re: Burying the URL

#177

Post by ajanuary »

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.

She'll put it in the bit that says "Search Google or type URL". It is in fact clearer now, because instead of having an old url in there, it can have a consistent prompt of "URL goes here". If she doesn't know what a URL is, it's now easier to describe the input box to her.

Re: Burying the URL

#178

Post by tfinniga »

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…

I agree that it's absolutely awful.

I hate how mobile safari has removed URLs, I find it very disorienting. I'm constantly looking at the URL bar to see if I've navigated to a new page or not, to see what the page I'm on is named and its purpose is, and to make sure I went where I clicked and wasn't just redirected somewhere else (sometimes this can be really confusing, for example mobile versions of webpages that dump you out to the main page instead of the mobile version of the page you were hoping for).

While I can see the anti-phishing advantages of emphasizing the domain, hopefully this wouldn't come at the expense of the rest of the URL. Right now chrome grays out the rest of the URL, which is nice, but if you want to be less subtle that's fine too - turn the domain into a button, or draw a box around it or whatever, but please leave the rest of the URL passively visible.

I think a lot of the negative reaction also comes from replacing it with a google search box. Not very classy. There used to be just the URL bar in browsers, then there was the URL bar and the search bar, then chrome simplified it into just the URL bar, which allowed you to search if you prefixed with ?, and now you can search with no prefix. The new change would just make the whole thing a search field. If you want to optimize chrome for people who don't know how to use the internet and won't learn that's google's choice, but don't expect me to use it or recommend it.

Re: Burying the URL

#179

Post by ajanuary »

busterarm wrote: post #108
bagels wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah but at least if you can get them to that bar or at least "Open Location" you can semi-predictably get them to a website where you can get the problem solved or narrowed down. Once you obscure URLs, web browsers become _impossible to support_. Of course Google doesn't care, because support isn't part of their lexicon.

You can still type URLs into the bar.

It's easier to direct them to it because it always has the same prompt text. "Do you see a box that says 'Search Google or type URL?'? Great, type this into it..."

The thing that's harder is getting them to read the url back to you.

Re: Burying the URL

#180

Post by alandarev »

surye wrote: post #137
Figs wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

figure out why some device in Windows Device Manager had a question mark next to it or what driver cocktail to install I did this just last week with a fresh Windows 7 installation because the drivers for the Ethernet adapter had to be manually installed...

When was the last time you thought about IRQ settings?

Is it some kind of a test? Why is knowing IRQ relevant?

I am joining many people here, who prefer having configurable tools. I do not want to configure 'IRQ' on any tool I use, but if it will misfunction, I will search for it and find out what IRQ means and how I adjust it to my needs. Worse, is being unable to change 'IRQ' when you need to, because people in charge decided it draws 95% customers away, and you are being in a 5% boat.

Post reply on HN