4 ms·

Jeez. I really don't get the fuss about this. 99% of web users probably won't even notice, except they might be pleased with the removal of the incomprehensible

by nudge 16y ago

Jeez. I really don't get the fuss about this. 99% of web users probably won't even notice, except they might be pleased with the removal of the incomprehensible (and, for years now, unnecessary for input) code in front of the part of the website address they recognise and understand. And for everybody else, what exactly is the problem? Copy/paste? I'm sure that can be fixed, even if it means the user setting "show http:// http:// in my address bar" as a preference. I read a lot on this and other websites about opinionated design. This is one of those things. The chrome team think this is a good idea. Some people disagree. As anyone who has ever run any kind of open source project can tell you, you can't just react to objections with "Okay then let's switch it back". At some point you have to actually make your own decision, weighing up the benefits against the costs, taking into account the number of people experiencing each. In this case, it seems like a massive improvement for simplicity for most web users, and a trivial, surely quite easily fixed bug for an unknown percentage of the small percentage of users who would ever need or want the 'http:// http:// there. Just my opinion. I would be interested to hear what other people think.

ay 16y ago
- it makes the system second-guess in more places. Means more complexity - understandingly some bugs to fix (tinyurl.com/http-strip) - the users will alter their behavior when mentioning the URLs (as I did just above). And will wonder why they are not linkable. Now either the site owners have to jump through the hoops to replicate the second-guessing logic to their sites, or everyone who views the URL, will have to copy/paste manually. Another couple of questions I will start asking as a user: why does the ftp:// thing pops up in front of the URL if I use it ? And, what is https:// https:// and why is it suddenly there when I only want to go to gmail.com ? This change noticeably increases the number of places which violate the principle of least surprise. But maybe I am a corner-case :-) EDIT: And, if we look at the whole "address bar" under the same UI angle - the path and the query string is equally a useless technobabble for anyone non-geek. So, I think we would go further and just show the host name, while we are at it.
- moe 16y ago
  .com is also useless technobabble. We should strip it and only show TLDs other than com.
- ugh 16y ago
  - the users will alter their behavior when mentioning the URLs (as I did just above). And will wonder why they are not linkable. What?! I know of no one who ever, ever, ever said http:// http:// when mentioning a URL. I certainly don’t do that.
  - ay 16y ago
    #define mention(url) type_or_paste_into_facebook(url) Sorry that my wording was unclear. "referencing in writing elsewhere" might have been a better one.
    - krainboltgreene 16y ago
      People have been using "lol, hey, go to www.google.com" for years without problems.
- chaosmachine 16y ago
  It's a bit late in the game, but maybe we could adopt a new one-character standard to replace http:// http:// with something shorter, but still easy to parse, like the @name system being made popular by twitter, etc. Some ideas: :news.ycombinator.com $news.ycombinator.com !news.ycombinator.com
isleyaardvark 16y ago
I have to wonder how it is a "massive improvement for simplicity for most web users". Here's a question: What problem does this solve for most users? Was the existence of "http:// http:// at the beginning of a url actually a problem for most users? If it's to emphasize the domain, Google Chrome 5.0 beta on OS X and IE8 both have domain highlighting, without breaking copy/paste. I would also dispute the idea that only a "small percentage of users who would ever need or want the 'http:// http:// there." Facebook and Twitter can drive as much traffic to some sites as Google. Breaking copy/paste doesn't help in sharing links.
- nudge 16y ago
  Copy/paste seems to be working perfectly well on Chrome for me. And if there are other buggy cases, why are you assuming they cannot be fixed? Facebook and twitter will work just fine. The problem it solves is one of simplicity. http doesn't mean anything to many people. I happen to like it gone - it's a redundant piece of information removed from my UI. I appreciate that.
  - isleyaardvark 16y ago
    The article listed bugs. Facebook and Twitter will work fine, it would just be more inconvenient because of the bugs introduced by the new scheme. It's not redundant information, it is information on what protocol is being used. That is important information. And this information is still being displayed, the only difference is it is displayed in an alternate form of an icon. An icon representation introduced by Chromium and unfamiliar to the majority of internet users. Now the Chromium developers have to decide how to display alternate protocols, will https be represented as text or as an icon? Will other browsers use the same icon representation? Are we assuming Chromium users will only use Chromium, will this confuse users who regularly use other browsers? To say that other bugs will just be fixed ignores the bugs caused by the unnecessarily introduced complexity.
    - nudge 16y ago
      You say the protocol being used is important. Is it? Why? I think it is not. I think the important things for 99.9% of people are: (i) this is a website, (ii) this is a secure website. The actual protocol being used is a technical issue that the user does not need to know. The user just needs to know if it is secure or not. You take issue with the icon. For years browsers have added a padlock to the UI when https:// https:// is being used. Do we therefore need the 'https:// https:// part? Do you think there should be no such icon? In fact, I would argue that displaying a globe icon for most websites, and a padlock icon for secure websites, is an enormous boon for web security. Consider the previous situation, without icons: you are asking the user to spot the difference between 'http:// http:// and 'https:// https://. This is not something everyone will manage. You don't like the abstraction because you are comfortable with what is being abstracted away. This does not mean the abstraction is not valuable. It means it is not valuable to you.
daleharvey 16y ago
I agree, when I am browsing urls are as good as irrelevant to me, obviously when I have my developer hat on I need to see them. when I seen the april fools joke about the redesign of ie9 I thought it looked awesome - http://livesino.net/archives/2587.live http://livesino.net/archives/2587.live

by nudge 16y ago

ay 16y ago

- it makes the system second-guess in more places. Means more complexity - understandingly some bugs to fix (tinyurl.com/http-strip) - the users will alter their behavior when mentioning the URLs (as I did just above). And will wonder why they are not linkable. Now either the site owners have to jump through the hoops to replicate the second-guessing logic to their sites, or everyone who views the URL, will have to copy/paste manually. Another couple of questions I will start asking as a user: why does the ftp:// thing pops up in front of the URL if I use it ? And, what is https:// https:// and why is it suddenly there when I only want to go to gmail.com ? This change noticeably increases the number of places which violate the principle of least surprise. But maybe I am a corner-case :-) EDIT: And, if we look at the whole "address bar" under the same UI angle - the path and the query string is equally a useless technobabble for anyone non-geek. So, I think we would go further and just show the host name, while we are at it.

moe 16y ago
.com is also useless technobabble. We should strip it and only show TLDs other than com.
ugh 16y ago
- the users will alter their behavior when mentioning the URLs (as I did just above). And will wonder why they are not linkable. What?! I know of no one who ever, ever, ever said http:// http:// when mentioning a URL. I certainly don’t do that.
- ay 16y ago
  #define mention(url) type_or_paste_into_facebook(url) Sorry that my wording was unclear. "referencing in writing elsewhere" might have been a better one.
  - krainboltgreene 16y ago
    People have been using "lol, hey, go to www.google.com" for years without problems.
chaosmachine 16y ago
It's a bit late in the game, but maybe we could adopt a new one-character standard to replace http:// http:// with something shorter, but still easy to parse, like the @name system being made popular by twitter, etc. Some ideas: :news.ycombinator.com $news.ycombinator.com !news.ycombinator.com

isleyaardvark 16y ago

I have to wonder how it is a "massive improvement for simplicity for most web users". Here's a question: What problem does this solve for most users? Was the existence of "http:// http:// at the beginning of a url actually a problem for most users? If it's to emphasize the domain, Google Chrome 5.0 beta on OS X and IE8 both have domain highlighting, without breaking copy/paste. I would also dispute the idea that only a "small percentage of users who would ever need or want the 'http:// http:// there." Facebook and Twitter can drive as much traffic to some sites as Google. Breaking copy/paste doesn't help in sharing links.

nudge 16y ago
Copy/paste seems to be working perfectly well on Chrome for me. And if there are other buggy cases, why are you assuming they cannot be fixed? Facebook and twitter will work just fine. The problem it solves is one of simplicity. http doesn't mean anything to many people. I happen to like it gone - it's a redundant piece of information removed from my UI. I appreciate that.
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  The article listed bugs. Facebook and Twitter will work fine, it would just be more inconvenient because of the bugs introduced by the new scheme. It's not redundant information, it is information on what protocol is being used. That is important information. And this information is still being displayed, the only difference is it is displayed in an alternate form of an icon. An icon representation introduced by Chromium and unfamiliar to the majority of internet users. Now the Chromium developers have to decide how to display alternate protocols, will https be represented as text or as an icon? Will other browsers use the same icon representation? Are we assuming Chromium users will only use Chromium, will this confuse users who regularly use other browsers? To say that other bugs will just be fixed ignores the bugs caused by the unnecessarily introduced complexity.
  - nudge 16y ago
    You say the protocol being used is important. Is it? Why? I think it is not. I think the important things for 99.9% of people are: (i) this is a website, (ii) this is a secure website. The actual protocol being used is a technical issue that the user does not need to know. The user just needs to know if it is secure or not. You take issue with the icon. For years browsers have added a padlock to the UI when https:// https:// is being used. Do we therefore need the 'https:// https:// part? Do you think there should be no such icon? In fact, I would argue that displaying a globe icon for most websites, and a padlock icon for secure websites, is an enormous boon for web security. Consider the previous situation, without icons: you are asking the user to spot the difference between 'http:// http:// and 'https:// https://. This is not something everyone will manage. You don't like the abstraction because you are comfortable with what is being abstracted away. This does not mean the abstraction is not valuable. It means it is not valuable to you.

daleharvey 16y ago

I agree, when I am browsing urls are as good as irrelevant to me, obviously when I have my developer hat on I need to see them. when I seen the april fools joke about the redesign of ie9 I thought it looked awesome - http://livesino.net/archives/2587.live http://livesino.net/archives/2587.live