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

881–890 of 919 posts

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

#881

Post by shaan7 »

floatingatoll wrote: post #867
eadmund wrote: post #816

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Low-tech users don’t often understand that a difference could possibly exist between “m.” and “www.” at all. They should. Children probably have difficulty with '6' vs. '9,' but they need to learn in order to use our number system. Likewise, users of the Internet need to learn the domain name system. Could there be better name systems? Sure. There could be better number systems, too, but this is what we have for no…

What difference is indicated by "news." rather than "www."?

Um, that they can be different websites?

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

#883

Post by ehsankia »

Nition wrote: post #258
ehsankia wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook aside, don't the majority of sites show you mobile version by looking at headers. Isn't that the whole reason the "Show desktop version" feature even exists in Chrome, to send the desktop header? Very few sites actually use www. vs m. Clearly, in those cases, people aren't "confused" by the fact that they are seeing a mobile version on www., so other than the fact that you're used to Facebook specifically wo…

Just speaking for myself, but often people will link to mobile Wikipedia pages, or mobile versions of other sites, and I'll look at the URL first to see if I can change it to a desktop version.

The fact that you have to even do that shows that the m. pattern is bad. The same url should be shareable without having to worry about such things. It should show as mobile on mobile and desktop on desktop, unless you specifically tell it not to.

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

#884

Post by ehsankia »

peterwwillis wrote: post #226
ehsankia wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?

What if the user sees "Wik1pedia.org/wiki/Canada"? Or "аррӏе.com"? Hiding random parts of the address isn't going to make browsing the web better. The main purpose of URLs is for hyperlinks, not as a highly intuitive user interface. Users who don't know how URLs work don't care what is up there. They only care that what they are looking at is what they expect, and a way to get to where they want to go. And that's a c…

That has nothing to do my argument. Just because people can't detect homoglyphs doesn't mean we should keep overloaded urls and shouldn't strive to make them more user friendly.

There's still value to be gained from having easily readable urls.

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

#885

Post by ehsankia »

type0 wrote: post #221
ehsankia wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?

http://www.example.com https://www.example.com http://example.com https://example.com do not have to be the same website and there are cases where it isn't the same site! Which site you visit does matter and not just for internet banking. If it becomes that easy if we hide things maybe we should hide the half of the traffic lights as well.

Those examples don't prove anything. First off, the http ones would appear different, they would have no lock. And 99.999999% of websites don't have a different www. and non-www. page. Showing www. for that 1 in a billion site, for that 1 in a million user, is insane.

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

#886

Post by ehsankia »

scrollaway wrote: post #367
md_ wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you’re being sarcastic, but if chrome could, with perfect accuracy, indicate if this was “the site you want”, why not do away with the url? Mind you, I’m not suggesting to do away with linking, as some rando suggested this implies. (While chrome doesn’t show the protocol prefix, it still copies the prefix when you copy the url, so imagine a similar ui.) But for most users, wouldn’t a ui that shows “server iden…

You're making a hypothetical based on "with perfect accuracy"... but the much simpler change here (www vs. no www) is not done "with perfect accuracy", as clearly outlined by a bunch of comments in this thread.

So you're saying we should show all users www., just because that one site in a billion that shows a different non-www. page, for that one user in a million that would even notice that difference? Chrome is a browser for the mainstream people. The feature you're asking for is for power users and extreme edge cases.

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

#887

Post by wst_ »

Yizahi wrote: post #812
wst_ wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about older people? Can your parents explain the difference? Mine can't and I can assure you most of them are the same.

Older people care more about consistency than "usability". They can successfully complete long tasks, maybe with several retries but they can, but if they are consistent. Input a long text somewhere, dial 15-20 digit phone number etc. But they can't usually deal with unpredictable situations, where computer will "intelligently" help them, fill parts of the input, when same action is different on different devices, wh…

Agree to that - my experience exactly. Very recent example. My father's using Skype to talk with family. They refreshed UI, he got new version installed and that was it. I've had to answer multiple questions what does this and that button do. "The same dad, it just looks a little bit different." What I got as an answer was "It's placed somewhere else. It is so confusing. Couldn't they just left everything were it's always been..." Thankfully I have remote access to his desktop so I can guide him around in situations like this.

And I am quite sure removing 'www' on the address bar's domains is as confusing.

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

#888

Post by krn »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #869
krn wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So Google will probably still cache and push pages via their own infrastructure when you visit those pages from your Google search results And that's what I mean by saying, that the entire web will be served from a single company's database, which already controls the browser and the search. You will be able to browse the web without ever leaving Google servers, and Google will be able to track your every interacti…

This doesn't increase Google's ability to track you at all. If you click a link on a Google search results page they already know you visited that site; them serving the initial page load via a cross-origin server push changes nothing. It also doesn't give them any more control over the web, since the page contents are still strictly controlled by the original publisher (and that's cryptographically enforced). So aga…

Google now only knows the first page I visit from its search results. After this update, Google will be able to follow me across the entire web, because it will the one who serves it to me. How is that not a concern?

Are you seriously claiming that the largest ad company in the world is interested in decentralizing the web? Its blog article you linked to yourself says, that the goal of this entire initiative is to increase the usage of AMP by "displaying better AMP URLs".

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

#889

Post by scarlac »

gempir wrote: post #709
parliament32 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De-emphasizing is fine, hiding alltogether is not -- for both protocols and subdomains.

But Chrome does exactly that. If you put focus in the URL bar in Chrome 69 it shows the full domain including protocol so amazon.de is visible on focus it's https://www.amazon.de

I thought that's how it worked too but it is not. 1 click shows the entire url and selects it. Still without "www.". Another click will show "www.".

Regardless of how you feel about the change, it does indeed hide 'www.' to the point where a power user could easily be fooled that it was the naked domain.

Edit: Here's a demo of how it works: https://www.useloom.com/share/f7d71b95d75b4c4582bb38cdc84326...

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

#890

Post by abalone »

wwweston wrote: post #880
abalone wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you ok, man? Peering through the pseudo-intellectual smokescreen the only thing approaching a concrete example of a problem is the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately. And your analogy betrays fundamentally confused thinking. Omitting "www." would be more comparable to omitting "1st floor" for one story building addresses than omitting t…

> the claim that this UI change "breaks DNS", which is trivially false. No real world examples are cited unfortunately. As mentioned in the comment you're replying to here, at least half a dozen such claims with examples are in the comments on the issue/ticket that started this thread, the same one that you even pulled a quote from. They've also been invoked throughout the entire HN discussion. I'm not sure if you mi…

That a misconfigured Singaporian banking site is the worst example in the world anyone can come up with is perfect evidence that the apoplectic reactions are unwarranted, like so many over the history of changes like this in our industry. And my comments are restricted to the "www" prefix.

> How will they know the floor wasn't accidentally omitted instead?

This is nonsensical. This www change does not hide subdomains that meaningfully differentiate among "floors". It only concerns the entirely redundant "www" ("'1st floor' for a one story building"). Accidental omission of "www" a total non-issue... in the real world, where we live.

Post reply on HN