3 ms·

URLs are not going away - like you point out, they are a reasonably good way for software to pass around a few bytes describing a resource location. Their usefu

URLs are not going away - like you point out, they are a reasonably good way for software to pass around a few bytes describing a resource location. Their usefulness for humans, particularly within a single site/web app, is less clear - e.g. if we ignore the domain name (which would be constant across a web app), this comment thread is described by 'item?id=11770774' - it doesn't mean anything, and so arguably is not worth displaying anywhere within the HN 'app'.

matt_kantor 10y ago
HN has subpar URLs (in terms of UX), but they're still very useful. I can copy the bytes "https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770774" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770774" and use them to get back to this comment thread later from any device with a web browser. I can give these bytes to a friend to refer them to this thread. I can share these bytes publicly and have a reasonable expectation that they'll allow anyone to retrieve the content on this page (not forever, but the Internet Archive and other caches have your back if this URL breaks in the future).
- open-source-ux 10y ago
  Making the HN URLs more human readable would also make them much longer. However, the longer URLs could provide a form of site structure if the URLs are 'editable' e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/05/25/regressive-web-apps Then, if you edit the URL, you can get all stories for today: https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/05/25/ All stories for the month (which would require pagination): https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/05/ And all stories for 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/ And finally, back to the home page https://news.ycombinator.com/ Note: all these pages don't have to be explictly linked or displayed on Hacker News, they might appear only when someone edits the URL in their browser. Edit: Just to add...here's a lengthy, but very detailed post by an ex-BBC employee about using URLs to model the complex data for BBC programmes Designing a URL structure for BBC programmes http://smethur.st/posts/176135860 http://smethur.st/posts/176135860
  - matt_kantor 10y ago
    Definitely! URLs that have meaningful structure (like your examples) are awesome because in addition to shareability they also offer discoverability without needing extra out-of-band information. As you say users can guess ahead of time what content they'll land on when editing structured URLs. But that's a feature that unfortunately we can't assume every website will provide (it would be great if we could!). My point was that even opaque/meaningless URLs are incredibly useful to humans.
mwcampbell 10y ago
The real power of URLs is for linking between sites, or linking to a site from another application. With HN as a website, it's easy for me to send someone a link to an HN comment thread over email or IM, and Hn doesn't have to specifically support that use case. If it were an application, that would depend on whether and how HN had implemented a "Share" feature.
- CognitiveLens 10y ago
  Sharing URLs between machines is critical, but they don't have to be at the top of every window to be shareable. I agree that simple URL sharing should be a core feature of a browser - but a small 'share' button that copies the URL into my clipboard would suffice.
wwweston 10y ago
It absolutely means something: it's an article/thread ID number. Now, that's not as transparent to grok or as high resolution as something like the date and title path schema that's become popular, but it's still something that some users will recognize and possibly even know how to get some utility out of -- if nothing else, by copying the URL and pasting it somewhere for sharing or use or storage. And that's the worst case scenario for URL utility. If we get into a recognizable scheme like the date-title path, there's a lot more apparent information and it can often be transparent how changing the URL can be an interface. We've had an interface that allows users who don't grok URLs to ignore them OR learn by observation and experimentation how they work -- and allows users who are already there to easily note and access them for two decades. This trend towards leaving them out doesn't allow that progression or utility.
- CognitiveLens 10y ago
  The argument is about whether they mean anything to _people_, though, as part of the user interface. URLs are hugely meaningful to software, and the ability to share them is critical, but that's independent of whether they are shown at the top of the window. Semantic URLs are helpful, but they're an awkward tool for changing the interface as you describe it. If a web application is relying _at all_ on people moving URL path elements around to access the content they want, it has already lost. I think URLs are fundamental to the web, but not fundamental to the user interface, which is an important distinction - I don't mind at all that in my native mobile and desktop application, there is no unique view identifier displayed at the top of the application window for every view available, and I think a mature web can equally hide, but not eliminate, that identifier.

matt_kantor 10y ago

HN has subpar URLs (in terms of UX), but they're still very useful. I can copy the bytes "https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770774" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11770774" and use them to get back to this comment thread later from any device with a web browser. I can give these bytes to a friend to refer them to this thread. I can share these bytes publicly and have a reasonable expectation that they'll allow anyone to retrieve the content on this page (not forever, but the Internet Archive and other caches have your back if this URL breaks in the future).

open-source-ux 10y ago
Making the HN URLs more human readable would also make them much longer. However, the longer URLs could provide a form of site structure if the URLs are 'editable' e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/05/25/regressive-web-apps Then, if you edit the URL, you can get all stories for today: https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/05/25/ All stories for the month (which would require pagination): https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/05/ And all stories for 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/2016/ And finally, back to the home page https://news.ycombinator.com/ Note: all these pages don't have to be explictly linked or displayed on Hacker News, they might appear only when someone edits the URL in their browser. Edit: Just to add...here's a lengthy, but very detailed post by an ex-BBC employee about using URLs to model the complex data for BBC programmes Designing a URL structure for BBC programmes http://smethur.st/posts/176135860 http://smethur.st/posts/176135860
- matt_kantor 10y ago
  Definitely! URLs that have meaningful structure (like your examples) are awesome because in addition to shareability they also offer discoverability without needing extra out-of-band information. As you say users can guess ahead of time what content they'll land on when editing structured URLs. But that's a feature that unfortunately we can't assume every website will provide (it would be great if we could!). My point was that even opaque/meaningless URLs are incredibly useful to humans.

mwcampbell 10y ago

The real power of URLs is for linking between sites, or linking to a site from another application. With HN as a website, it's easy for me to send someone a link to an HN comment thread over email or IM, and Hn doesn't have to specifically support that use case. If it were an application, that would depend on whether and how HN had implemented a "Share" feature.

CognitiveLens 10y ago
Sharing URLs between machines is critical, but they don't have to be at the top of every window to be shareable. I agree that simple URL sharing should be a core feature of a browser - but a small 'share' button that copies the URL into my clipboard would suffice.

wwweston 10y ago

It absolutely means something: it's an article/thread ID number. Now, that's not as transparent to grok or as high resolution as something like the date and title path schema that's become popular, but it's still something that some users will recognize and possibly even know how to get some utility out of -- if nothing else, by copying the URL and pasting it somewhere for sharing or use or storage. And that's the worst case scenario for URL utility. If we get into a recognizable scheme like the date-title path, there's a lot more apparent information and it can often be transparent how changing the URL can be an interface. We've had an interface that allows users who don't grok URLs to ignore them OR learn by observation and experimentation how they work -- and allows users who are already there to easily note and access them for two decades. This trend towards leaving them out doesn't allow that progression or utility.

CognitiveLens 10y ago
The argument is about whether they mean anything to _people_, though, as part of the user interface. URLs are hugely meaningful to software, and the ability to share them is critical, but that's independent of whether they are shown at the top of the window. Semantic URLs are helpful, but they're an awkward tool for changing the interface as you describe it. If a web application is relying _at all_ on people moving URL path elements around to access the content they want, it has already lost. I think URLs are fundamental to the web, but not fundamental to the user interface, which is an important distinction - I don't mind at all that in my native mobile and desktop application, there is no unique view identifier displayed at the top of the application window for every view available, and I think a mature web can equally hide, but not eliminate, that identifier.