4 ms·
When I said "what problem does it solve" I was thinking of usability problems as opposed to disagreements over aesthetics. Did the presence of "http" confuse us
by isleyaardvark 17y ago
When I said "what problem does it solve" I was thinking of usability problems as opposed to disagreements over aesthetics. Did the presence of "http" confuse users? Did it prevent them from completing tasks they wanted to accomplish with their browser? How does its removal help the user?
- nudge 17y agoAnything that is not understood by a user is potentially a source of confusion and error. The http prefix did nothing when navigating. You could type 'www.google.com' and get exactly the same result as 'http://www.google.com http://www.google.com. It is redundant, unnecessary, wasteful. It can be removed, because it does nothing. This is a usability problem. You just don't experience it.
- ay 17y agoWhen I type "www.google.com" into the search string of my search engine and hit "I feel lucky" then it gives exactly the same result (and that's how I saw a few people navigate to sites). So if we go with the path of UI simplification, we could as well get rid of the URL (what does this TLA mean for a user, anyway?) and just leave a single input-only field. Wait, that's exactly what is there today after you click on the icon with the house on it... So, maybe just make a checkbox "hide the URL input" and "show search engine homepage on new tab" ?
- nudge 17y agoI never said UI simplification should be privileged above all other concerns. Your idea has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
- isleyaardvark 17y agoYes, it did do something. It informed me that I was on an unsecure connection.
- nudge 17y agoDo you generally assume you are on a secure connection unless told otherwise?