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

Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

androidpolice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 497 posts

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#191

Post by lowlevel »

polote wrote: post #112

The title is misleading and people don't read the article. Chrome is not hiding the bar address, it is only showing the domain in normal times, and showing the full url when you hover the bar Personally I find it better for non technical people, because they can focus on the domain only. For tech people you have the option to keep the full url visible at all time, which fixes the issue. As for people complaining abou…

Sounds about right... I am still cheesed that they're treating the address bar like where you search. For me, if the address bar does happen to go away, so does chrome.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#192

Post by EarthLaunch »

crazygringo wrote: post #136

Remember folks, Apple has been doing this in Safari since 2014. And there's been zero uproar over it at all. I don't understand why people suddenly hate this just because it's Google. For most users, total focus on the domain name is a security feature . For 99% of users, what comes after the domain name might as well be gibberish. I mean, it is a majority of the time.

Google has been doing this since 2010 [0]. Weird strawman.

0: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#194

Post by izacus »

donor20 wrote: post #68

Wow - top posts are conspiracy theories. "The only reason to do this..." "This is a security issue..." Google has millions / billions of users. From a security standpoint the focus should be entirely on the root domain, that is the only really meaningful root of trust. If you are talking about a security issue - the KEY security issue is ANY lack of clarity around root domain. "Showing the full URL may detract from t…

The strange part there is that this is mobile Chrome following the mobile Safari UX which has never been criticised like this. It's just bizarre.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#196

Post by yrro »

Beldin wrote: post #173
walrus01 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage everyone to use Firefox on Android just for the one killer feature of being able to install the full desktop ublock origin plugin.

I tried. Tab switching was - for me - horrible compared to Chrome (chrome:swipe down, swipe address bar down, select tab you want from carousel). I kept looking if i missed this obvious feature. I tried to live without it, but Firefox mobile's tab switching just turned out to be a deal breaker for me. If anyone had some tips: please!! I'd vastly prefer using FF on mobile.

This has been reworked in https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi.... The URL bar is now at the bottom of the screen, including the tab switch button which is now always within reach of your thumb.

On the other hand, I didn't have a problem with tapping the tab select button in the non-beta app, where it's in exactly the same position as it is in Chrome...

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#197

Post by bootlooped »

avodonosov wrote: post #161
scott_s wrote: post #107

Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…

item?id=24156986 is readable and meaningful

Not to laypeople. Most people have no idea what query params are, or even what part of the url the top level domain is. You can explain what they are easily, but it still wouldn't be useful to laypeople. What can my mom do with "item?id=24156986"? Outside of developing something that interfaces with HN, I don't know what I would do with that info either.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#198

Post by kobe_bryant »

scott_s wrote: post #107

Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…

this site is fine since these are submissions but its so satisfying when you can just edit parts of the url and go directly to the date and category you want

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#199

Post by Qub3d »

scott_s wrote: post #107

Something I haven't seen anyone here bring up yet: many URLs are meaningless to humans past the domain. For an example, look at the top of this page. The only semantic meaning in the URL for this post is `news.ycombinator.com`. The rest, `item?id=24156986`, is meaningless to a human. (But, of course, meaningful to HN's backend.) A lot of (most?) of the URLs on the web are not semantic . They're naked application look…

I like Firefox's current strategy of making the root domain brightly-colored and the rest of the url less-so.

Re: Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86

#200

Post by nyxtom »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #169
bitexploder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are going back to AOL days. That didn’t work out so well for AOL in the long run. It’s kind of crazy to me you can’t do marketing now without at least discussing Google and Facebook these days. Edit: at least you knew you were the customer with AOL and paid them with clear terms for access.

The only difference is that Google has endlessly more clout and depth than AOL and my fear is that where AOL failed, Google may succeed. With Firefox succumbing this week, this is pretty horrible. I’m not a Richard Stallman type, but I think it’s come to the point where if you have even the slightest pretense of being a “free web” person, using Chrome or a Chromium-based browser has become unconscionable. This compan…

Color picker seems to work great in the CSS Properties at least :D
Post reply on HN