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

231–240 of 376 posts

Re: Burying the URL

#231

Post by 7952 »

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?

The cynical view is they want people to share using Google+ instead of just sending a URL. The "Share" button is already central to most browsers, but is still uncommon on the desktop.

Re: Burying the URL

#232

Post by cninja »

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…

Opera did something similar back in 2010 in v11 with the opera:config#UserPrefs|HideURLParameter configuration variable. I found I was wanting the URL information often enough that I turned the feature off. I wonder the old Opera team had any metrics they gathered.

Re: Burying the URL

#233

Post by joelanman »

yaph wrote: post #195
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 can't imagine using a graphical browser without an address bar. Regarding the possible benefits, I think phishing would become a lot easier, if users don't see the URL any more, anyone can still link to phishing pages.

phishing should actually be harder - the only thing now shown is the domain - the important part, without the whole path to add noise

Re: Burying the URL

#234

Post by gcr »

dredmorbius wrote: post #211
userbinator wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

stop using Chrome That may solve this particular problem, but then which browser do you use instead? Firefox has had its history of similar changes (although you can still use extensions), Opera post-12 lost a ton of customisability, and IE, although appearing to have the fewest irritating interface changes, also has the most rendering quirks. (Personally I'm less concerned with the rendering quirks than the UI chang…

I'm smelling a possible reboot of the browser paradigm. There are a few fundamental uses I see, and they're somewhat distinct: • Reading. For which stripping 99.99966% of Web formatting would be preferred. If I got content-heavy sites in a form similar to what Readability, Pocket, Instapaper, etc., delivers, I'd be much happier. Well, slightly less grumpy. I found it interesting that the Kobo tablet was, for a while,…

You seem to be asking for a generic "Tablet" interface, with multiple compartmentalized apps/processes for each of your use cases.

Want to read? I either fire up the Adobe PDF reader and load something from my history or I open my email/dropbox/trello card and tap an attachment, which opens up the PDF reader.

Almost all the interesting ideas in academia come in .pdf format, not .html. It just fits our use case better.

Want to shop? Fire up amazon i guess or fire up a web browser and go to amazon. Who cares if the "Amazon" uses standard HTML forms? The user doesn't.

Want to $x? Fire up $app_that_handles[$x].

Re: Burying the URL

#235

Post by 7952 »

userbinator wrote: post #123
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…

stop using Chrome That may solve this particular problem, but then which browser do you use instead? Firefox has had its history of similar changes (although you can still use extensions), Opera post-12 lost a ton of customisability, and IE, although appearing to have the fewest irritating interface changes, also has the most rendering quirks. (Personally I'm less concerned with the rendering quirks than the UI chang…

If 99% of what you do is in a browser then the browser has really taken the place of the operating system. And browsers are destined to follow a similar path to the OS. Remember when windows removed the full file path from explorer?

Re: Burying the URL

#236

Post by MereInterest »

antris wrote: post #226
wwweston wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. While we're talking about things we don't need, let's include this change . The fact is, for most of the last two decades we've already had a UI where users who don't care to attend to the URL don't have to, and users who care to notice can. What does this add? Nothing. But it does take away some leg…

> URLs aren't high tech any more than the address to your house is When you stop by the local coffee shop, do you take note of what its address is? The users have an idea what URLs are, they just don't care.

No, because I know that I drove down the same street, parked in the same parking lot, and walked through the same door. The URL should always be visible so that I can glance up and see if I am in a familiar place before putting in a username/password.

Re: Burying the URL

#237

Post by wil421 »

>Where previously typing “ruby” would send you to ruby.com and dump you on the Kay Jewelers site, now it directs you to ruby-lang.org by way of a Google results page. Of course this benefits Google, but it’s also better for users. Usability 1, URLs 0.

I dont see this as a benefit to users, most people I know dont even have a concept of what programming languages are. If I were to say Ruby they would be thinking of the gem.

Re: Burying the URL

#238

Post by acheron »

kukabynd wrote: post #100

hope safari, firefox won't go this road

Agreed.

On the concerning side, there's nothing Mozilla likes more than copying Chrome.

On the hopeful side though, they have remained strong in the face of combined search+URL fields, so this may be one place they continue to resist.

Re: Burying the URL

#239

Post by AndrewDucker »

RegW wrote: post #224
StavrosK wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it asks you when you first run it.

Hmm, so I guess their stats are likely to be skewed. Being based on the choices of those that don't know or care how the web works.

Or those who are happy to contribute their behaviour despite being aware of both of those things.

Re: Burying the URL

#240

Post by [deleted] »

tszming wrote: post #29

I worry it will be the same as last time they removed the http from the url: Users: Okay, you removed the http from the url by default, but can I have an option to disable it? Chrome: No, just accept it https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467

[deleted]
Post reply on HN