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

Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

bugs.chromium.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 919 posts

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#551

Post by abalone »

akira2501 wrote: post #495
abalone wrote: post #393

> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…

> If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is a false dichotomy. There are tons of ways to improve the implementation without just hacking parts of the URL out of the "omnibar." You could split the omnibar and/or allow it to be resized so both pieces of information can be shown. You can use differential color highlighting and/or text formatting to convey which parts google considers "trusted."…

I appreciate your effort but I have to say, none of those are would remotely constitute usability improvements for the average user. Your proposals all involve increasing the complexity of the information presented to the user. This has been the root of bad UI for ages. The harder design decision, and what our industry has slowly gotten better at, is how to reduce information.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#552

Post by abalone »

13415 wrote: post #447
abalone wrote: post #393

> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…

It's about as smart as hiding filename extensions, and the results will probably be similar. Increased confusion and more security risks.

I agree with the first sentence. MacOS has hidden extensions for... ever? And MacOS is generally considered the easiest to use and most secure desktop OS. So there you go.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#553

Post by ezoe »

I switched to the Firefox some time ago when Chromium always eat precious whole one CPU core time for stupid field trials.

Now I know Chromium is developed by bunch of idiots who don't understand the practical consequence of omitting the part of domain name.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#554

Post by jsjohnst »

trocadero wrote: post #173
parliament32 wrote: post #118

Considering a subdomain "trivial" is ridiculous... there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com". Not only can they serve different sites, they can even have different DNS records! It seems that "m." is also considered a trivial subdomain. So when a user clicks a link to a "m.facebook.com" uri, they'll be confused why FB looks different when the browser reports it's on "facebook.com". I sincerely h…

>there's a difference between "www.example.com" and "example.com" Can you link to a site where these two are different?

Read the source link. A concrete example (Citibank) is given.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#555

Post by pvorb »

masswerk wrote: post #294
masswerk wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is certainly subverting the domain name system. I can't see the value or gain in security by this. (If you want to put focus on the domain, then display the host-part with less contrast, i.e. grey, but don't hide any potentially vital information. Otherwise, put out a RFC, defining "www" as a substitute for "*", or a zero-value atom, in order to guarantee consistent behavior.) Edit: There are also legal concerns…

A proposal for better security with domain names: The domain name system has been around for decades and it's a clever and proven system. It can – and should be – taught in school and, arguably, knowledge of it is, while not difficult to obtain, essential in our times. Additional ambiguity in this is probably not what we want. Arguably, the most sincere problems arise from mixed alphabets with Unicode domains and loo…

How about displaying an identicon, that is rendered from the domain, in the address bar? People might soon learn what the icons of their important sites look like and will easily detect if somebody is trying to phish their bank account.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#556

Post by baby »

parliament32 wrote: post #431
abalone wrote: post #393

> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…

What exactly is the usability improvement from hiding part of the domain name? Maybe we should be hiding ".com" because that's trivial too? Better yet, why show "google" at all if from the page it's clear you're on Google? Might as well just fullscreen the content pane and be done with it.

What is the usability improvement of www?

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#557

Post by pishpash »

idbehold wrote: post #265
fireattack wrote: post #99

I'm ok with hiding "www.", but it also hides "m." which is sometimes very confusing (I once opened a m.facebook.com link and was very puzzled why it uses the mobile site when the URl bar just shows "facebook.com").

What you may be surprised to learn is that Chrome isn't just stripping "www." from the beginning of the subdomain. "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com"

lol, this one is a plain bug if true, and hints at a really rash change, like, not reviewed at all.

It's getting likely it will have to be reverted and a loud slap in the face delivered as should be.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#558

Post by QasimK »

peterwwillis wrote: post #131
QasimK wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think websites should just stop using "www." entirely and host directly on their domain rather than a subdomain.

This causes browser security problems, it creates load balancing issues, it makes failover harder, etc. Only works for small sites that don't need to be highly available.

Why does it make loadbalancing and fail-overs harder?

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#559

Post by baby »

stcredzero wrote: post #455
abalone wrote: post #393

> This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered "trivial". As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that "www.domain.com" and "domain.com" are two different domains... What ISPs teach their users anymore these days? Why the heck do we want to go back to that? Time for a modicum of historical perspective. If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. This is part o…

If you care about usability this is clearly an improvement. The cost/benefit doesn't work out. It's a usability improvement, but it comes with a huge cost, where many, many sites have the fundamental function of a URL -- that of an address/specifier across the internet -- basically broken. The person who implemented this change either didn't work out the cost, or decided they didn't care. Everyone is hyperventilating…

You are overestimating the cost. This is going to help kill the www on the long run.

Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL

#560

Post by [deleted] »

pishpash wrote: post #557
idbehold wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you may be surprised to learn is that Chrome isn't just stripping "www." from the beginning of the subdomain. "subdomain.www.domain.com" displays as "subdomain.domain.com"

lol, this one is a plain bug if true, and hints at a really rash change, like, not reviewed at all. It's getting likely it will have to be reverted and a loud slap in the face delivered as should be.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN