21–30 of 497 posts
I get emails from some banks with instructions to spot phishing. One of those is to look at the full URL in emails or on websites to know if it’s authentic or not. For better or worse, the URL scheme is what we have to identify websites and pages. Hiding that on larger screens doesn’t make much sense. It also hinders learning for the next generation.
A nice side effect for them is that it makes it less obvious you are viewing an AMP site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, that's their argument for doing it. Most users don't understand the different bits of a URL, to know whether it's from the site they think it's from. See (huge) previous discussion from two months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23516088 Personally, for my own purposes, I think hiding any bit of the URL is incredibly inconvenient. Already hiding the www. is seriously annoying. I will switch this n…
If that's really their justification, then I wish they would take the approach that Firefox does - show the full URL but have the domain name in white and the rest of the URL in a muted color. It provides the full information as well as highlighting the most important info for spotting a phishing scheme.
Which is exactly what they do at the moment.
> “Showing the full URL may detract from the parts of the URL that are more important to making a security decision on a webpage," Chromium software engineer Livvie Lin said in a design document earlier this year. I’m a software engineer, too, but I would never make such an important UX decision because I know that is not my area of expertise. I hope they’ve gotten significant user feedback on this before rolling it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, that's their argument for doing it. Most users don't understand the different bits of a URL, to know whether it's from the site they think it's from. See (huge) previous discussion from two months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23516088 Personally, for my own purposes, I think hiding any bit of the URL is incredibly inconvenient. Already hiding the www. is seriously annoying. I will switch this n…
It is not just inconvenient, hiding or modifying URLs is a lie and is a security problem. Hiding part of the URL means that you don't really see what's going on, and that is the first step towards a security problem, not away from it.
Sigh. Now browsers are as powerful as OSes. Why do you need OSes? Address bars? People don't need them. Google should tell you which website you're visiting is good or which is bad if they hide the address bar.
People don’t want to visit AMP sites, they want to visit the site that’s the original source for their news, etc...
For now I'm quite happy to have finally switched to Firefox a few months ago. If Firefox disappeared though, as it seems it might, that would be horribly frustrating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's really their justification, then I wish they would take the approach that Firefox does - show the full URL but have the domain name in white and the rest of the URL in a muted color. It provides the full information as well as highlighting the most important info for spotting a phishing scheme.
> show the full URL but have the domain name in white and the rest of the URL in a muted color Which is exactly what they do at the moment.
My best explanation so far is that the Chrome team doesn't know how to improve their browser anymore so they just make up work to keep the software engineers busy.
Hasn’t Safari already been doing this for ages with no issues?