This makes me glad I use Firefox and have dropped chrome entirely.
Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
91–100 of 919 posts
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#92...I'm okay with this, I think. Has www (http over tcp/ip) not become the default protocol for "the internet" in the average person's mind?
I think websites should just stop using "www." entirely and host directly on their domain rather than a subdomain.
This is actually a lot harder than it sounds. You can CNAME www, but you can't CNAME your apex (some DNS providers pretend you can, they will resolve your CNAME for you and provide A/AAAA records to recursive resolvers -- but if you wanted to CNAME to a DNS based load balancer, that doesn't really work)
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#93This is idiotic and harmful. We already lost information about the protocol, because somebody believed it is "too complex" for users. Now we're losing other parts of the URL. It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me? It used to signify that a "known authority" certified that I'm connected to whatever I see in the URL bar. But now that browsers take liberties wit…
99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)
Let's dumb down the internet even more because non technical users feel confused. Maybe we can actually remove the url field and just let the isp decide where they should go? They could offer a choice of 10 popular sites, like TV channels.. :)
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#94Yo, this is... going too far, c'mon now. While sure, www seems odd now, it's still a subdomain and we're inching into territory of obscuring things that matter for small gains in end-user perception that aren't _that_ impactful.
Yeah this is weird. Which users are bothered enough by the leading www enough to justify messing with semantics?
Building on that point, everyone I ever meet who's not technical is www-by-default, because they were trained that way...
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#95Since everyone is wondering why, and since I happened to stumble across a reason during my time as a pentester, here you go: Spearphishing is still one of the most common ways of breaching a corporate network. If I target you, you will likely fall for one of my attempts. If you are a company rather than a person, my odds go way up, because I have N chances to trick someone rather than 1 (where N is roughly the number…
Wasn't this (partially?) solved by making the domain black and the rest of the text gray? That's how it appears in Firefox. It makes it very easy to see "ycombinator.com".
According to the PSL their list is also used for this purpose in Internet Explorer, but not other browsers.
(The Public Suffix List is the Mozilla project that knows .co.uk isn't the same kind of thing as .google.com even though they both have two DNS labels. These days every non-crap browser uses it to restrict cross domain cookies but they aren't consistent when it comes to other features)
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#96Stupid crap like that is one of the reasons why Chrome isn't my primary browser.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#97Since everyone is wondering why, and since I happened to stumble across a reason during my time as a pentester, here you go: Spearphishing is still one of the most common ways of breaching a corporate network. If I target you, you will likely fall for one of my attempts. If you are a company rather than a person, my odds go way up, because I have N chances to trick someone rather than 1 (where N is roughly the number…
Wasn't this (partially?) solved by making the domain black and the rest of the text gray? That's how it appears in Firefox. It makes it very easy to see "ycombinator.com".
Is this specific to a version of Firefox, or an extension?
I'm using Firefox 62.0, and I do not see a difference in color between the domain and the rest of the URL.
(Windows 10, 1080p screen.)
ETA: Holy crap, if I zoom into a screenshot, I can see the difference. My eyes cannot benefit from this feature under normal circumstances, though. Looks like black (#000000) and gray (#807D7D).
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)
99.9% of motor vehicle users have no use for airbags. We still keep them for the .1%.
Airbags have utility for 100% of motor vehicle users.
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#99I'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").
Re: Chrome 69: “www.” subdomain missing from URL
#100This is idiotic and harmful. We already lost information about the protocol, because somebody believed it is "too complex" for users. Now we're losing other parts of the URL. It's making a joke of the SSL/TLS padlock, too — what exactly is the padlock supposed to tell me? It used to signify that a "known authority" certified that I'm connected to whatever I see in the URL bar. But now that browsers take liberties wit…
99.9% of users have no idea what any of the words you just said mean. The change was made for them, not for you (the .1%)
You're missing jwr's point. He's arguing that this is harmful for users, especially the ones who don't know what the words mean.
If I were solving this, I'd instead push to eliminate "www" altogether, not sweep it under the rug. It was useful circa 1996, when users might plausibly be using something other than the WWW with a browser. But it has become entirely vestigial.