3 ms·

It's not a bad idea and possibly even worth pursuing. One of my little favorite things about frameworks like rails is how much effort was put into making human

by city41 16y ago

It's not a bad idea and possibly even worth pursuing. One of my little favorite things about frameworks like rails is how much effort was put into making human readable URIs: http://www.foobar.com/products/kitchen/blenders/1 http://www.foobar.com/products/kitchen/blenders/1, in most cases working your way up say to foobar.com/products/kitchen "does the right thing". I also like how easy this guy's idea would be to implement in a framework like rails. By that I mean generating the required <nav> elements would be trivial for rails to figure out.

jrockway 16y ago
But the 1 is unreadable and opaque. At least Amazon tells you the full product name in the URL. (But incidentally, you can remove this part and the URL still works.)
- city41 16y ago
  The 1 isn't required, it's common to use the item's ID in that position, but if you can ensure unique names or some other property to be unique, you can use that too. Even with the opaque 1 I still prefer this format of URL over the gobbly gook sites like Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, etc generate.
smiler 16y ago
Us developers get a hard on when we create these pretty urls, but I recently switched an app to have nice urls and not one user mentioned anything - to them, navigation is in the application, not the url. Better to keep the breadcrumb there I say
- city41 16y ago
  It depends on your userbase. Completely non technical users have completely blocked out URLs, they might as well not even exist to them. They'll even go to foo.com by typing "foo.com" into Google. But other users appreciate the nice URLs. Take reddit users refering to subreddits as "/r/subredditname" or 4Chan users going by "/X/". Of course these are more technically inclined users, but in many cases probably only marginally so.
  - astrange 16y ago
    > or 4Chan users going by "/X/" When will the nightmare of capitalization end? I've never even seen that second form before.

by city41 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago

But the 1 is unreadable and opaque. At least Amazon tells you the full product name in the URL. (But incidentally, you can remove this part and the URL still works.)

city41 16y ago
The 1 isn't required, it's common to use the item's ID in that position, but if you can ensure unique names or some other property to be unique, you can use that too. Even with the opaque 1 I still prefer this format of URL over the gobbly gook sites like Amazon, Ebay, Microsoft, etc generate.

smiler 16y ago

Us developers get a hard on when we create these pretty urls, but I recently switched an app to have nice urls and not one user mentioned anything - to them, navigation is in the application, not the url. Better to keep the breadcrumb there I say

city41 16y ago
It depends on your userbase. Completely non technical users have completely blocked out URLs, they might as well not even exist to them. They'll even go to foo.com by typing "foo.com" into Google. But other users appreciate the nice URLs. Take reddit users refering to subreddits as "/r/subredditname" or 4Chan users going by "/X/". Of course these are more technically inclined users, but in many cases probably only marginally so.
- astrange 16y ago
  > or 4Chan users going by "/X/" When will the nightmare of capitalization end? I've never even seen that second form before.