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

311–320 of 376 posts

Re: Burying the URL

#311

Post by Crito »

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #259
Crito wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Umm... Actually, yes, it is relevant. A large chunk of the reason behind the efficiency in particular of newer cars is the addition of those opaque black boxes. Being able to have the car's engine directly tune things according to complicated algorithms, instead of power-hungry mechanical controls, etc, etc.

Those black boxes would function just as well if they had public and standard specifications. Their opaque secrecy is not a feature.

Re: Burying the URL

#312

Post by blueskin_ »

antr wrote: post #176
nanidin wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Of course, that way google can build up more of a profile on them.

"Don't be evil" gave way to "Invading privacy for fun and profit" long ago.

Re: Burying the URL

#313

Post by abruzzi »

rspeed wrote: post #269
tfinniga wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 du…

> The new change would just make the whole thing a search field. This is incorrect. Entering a URL into the field produces the exact same behavior as it does with this option disabled. Typing a URL and pressing enter goes directly to that URL. Typing part of a URL that has been previously visited (like "face" => " http://www.facebook.com/" ) will default to visiting that URL.

except where chrome (or safari) mistakes a url for a for search terms. OT, I know, but since the advent of the "unified search" boxes, I have returned to the late nineties and type "http://" with all my urls because chrome and safari get it wrong so often.

Re: Burying the URL

#314

Post by TheLoneWolfling »

Crito wrote: post #311
TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm... Actually, yes, it is relevant. A large chunk of the reason behind the efficiency in particular of newer cars is the addition of those opaque black boxes. Being able to have the car's engine directly tune things according to complicated algorithms, instead of power-hungry mechanical controls, etc, etc.

Those black boxes would function just as well if they had public and standard specifications. Their opaque secrecy is not a feature.

True.

I was commenting on the black boxes, not the software contained within.

Re: Burying the URL

#316

Post by CalRobert »

Is anyone surprised? Everyone was so quick to rush into Google's embrace, and is now surprised to reap what they hath sown. Please, at LEAST use Chromium, instead of Chrome, if you must use Webkit. The Webkit monoculture is have a strong negative impact on the web (try browsing in Firefox some time).

Re: Burying the URL

#317

Post by kevingadd »

forgottenpass wrote: post #258
kevingadd wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect that Google is disciplined about shipping features like this only after extensive testing, but it troubles me that despite obvious problems with this approach - like the external appearance of funneling users to Google search for all their web navigation (regardless of whether this was an intentional purpose behind the design) - it made it all the way through design, implementation, testing, and code review…

it made it all the way through design, implementation, testing, and code review without anyone realizing what the reaction would be. Oh I don't think that's true at all. They just know that they're big enough that it doesn't matter what a bunch of internet weenies think when most of their audience doesn't know or care enough to understand the UI change, let alone grasp the business interests that drive it.

So XSS attacks and phishing scams don't matter? People who don't want their family's credit card details and passwords stolen by thieves are weenies?

Re: Burying the URL

#318

Post by moe »

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indeed indistinguishable from malice...

You're treading on thin ice there, Google.

Re: Burying the URL

#319

Post by wtbob »

alternize wrote: post #308
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've been using it for a few hours now. while my initial reaction was "how could they!", after a while, it's not that annoying anymore. I can now see the reasoning behind it - many people I know do not actively use the url bar except for searching. even when they want to check their facebook or favorite website, they just enter "facebook" in the url and use the (google) search results to get where they want to. for s…

I'm sure many people don't use the bar for anything other than searching, but I often use it as its own interface, when hacking around with REST work. I'd hate to have them remove it.

Re: Burying the URL

#320

Post by forgottenpass »

kevingadd wrote: post #317
forgottenpass wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it made it all the way through design, implementation, testing, and code review without anyone realizing what the reaction would be. Oh I don't think that's true at all. They just know that they're big enough that it doesn't matter what a bunch of internet weenies think when most of their audience doesn't know or care enough to understand the UI change, let alone grasp the business interests that drive it.

So XSS attacks and phishing scams don't matter? People who don't want their family's credit card details and passwords stolen by thieves are weenies?

I'm including myself in that group. And yes? Or at least will-be-dismissed-by-google-as-weeines-once-they-decide-what-is-right-for-everyone. But that doesn't roll off the tongue very well.
Post reply on HN