5 ms·

>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users tha

>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.

ehsankia 8y ago
They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210dj9102d12 https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?
- nqzero 8y ago
  the only thing you've changed is now those 99.9% users can't even find the information they need to ask the .1% for help great work
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  According to Apple, they care about "wikipedia.org", only.
- freehunter 8y ago
  Because arguments aren't always useless like in your example. Might as well just do away with the whole URL bar and just have a green checkmark if Chrome thinks it's the site you want. I mean, why should a user see "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada" when all they care about is "This is the Wikipedia Page for Canada"?
  - md_ 8y ago
    I know you’re being sarcastic, but if chrome could, with perfect accuracy, indicate if this was “the site you want”, why not do away with the url? Mind you, I’m not suggesting to do away with linking, as some rando suggested this implies. (While chrome doesn’t show the protocol prefix, it still copies the prefix when you copy the url, so imagine a similar ui.) But for most users, wouldn’t a ui that shows “server identity” in some more user-coherent way be what they want? In particular, do subdomains help or hurt phishing detection?
    - freehunter 8y ago
      If we could, I'd be all for it. Have an option that says "show URL bar or not" and by default hide the URL bar, optionally show the whole thing. Especially on space-constrained devices like cell phones where every pixel counts. Just show the page's title. I think we're a long way away from that ideal, though, and some web pages may not be designed with this ideal in mind.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      You're making a hypothetical based on "with perfect accuracy"... but the much simpler change here (www vs. no www) is not done "with perfect accuracy", as clearly outlined by a bunch of comments in this thread.
      - ehsankia 8y ago
        So you're saying we should show all users www., just because that one site in a billion that shows a different non-www. page, for that one user in a million that would even notice that difference? Chrome is a browser for the mainstream people. The feature you're asking for is for power users and extreme edge cases.
- softawre 8y ago
  I like how HN cuts off the end of that url.
- type0 8y ago
  http://www.example.com http://www.example.com https://www.example.com https://www.example.com http://example.com http://example.com https://example.com https://example.com do not have to be the same website and there are cases where it isn't the same site! Which site you visit does matter and not just for internet banking. If it becomes that easy if we hide things maybe we should hide the half of the traffic lights as well.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    Those examples don't prove anything. First off, the http ones would appear different, they would have no lock. And 99.999999% of websites don't have a different www. and non-www. page. Showing www. for that 1 in a billion site, for that 1 in a million user, is insane.
- ryandrake 8y ago
  I wonder if there is any research or evidence that users actually find “www.” confusing enough to go through the trouble of removing it.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  What if the user sees "Wik1pedia.org/wiki/Canada"? Or "аррӏе.com"? Hiding random parts of the address isn't going to make browsing the web better. The main purpose of URLs is for hyperlinks, not as a highly intuitive user interface. Users who don't know how URLs work don't care what is up there. They only care that what they are looking at is what they expect, and a way to get to where they want to go. And that's a complicated problem. The URL bar hiding thing isn't for users, it's for Google to push Google search. That's why they attempted to remove the URL bar entirely four years ago and replace it with a search bar.
  - md_ 8y ago
    Don’t Firefox and Safari also have a single bar for searches? Yet neither company runs a search engine. I don’t suppose it’s possible this is just better for most users?
    - Multicomp 8y ago
      Firefox will allow you to search via the address bar, but it still has a separate search bar to the right by default.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        This doesn't appear to be the case? [1]:https://www.techworld.com/download/internet-tools/firefox-63-beta-3-3250000/ https://www.techworld.com/download/internet-tools/firefox-63...
        r3bl 8y ago
        It still exists, but the default changed. Now you can go to menu -> Customize and drag it where you want.
      - qu4z-2 8y ago
        Also, if you go into about:config and turn off keyword.enabled, the address bar will no longer search. It's very useful if you don't want to Google internal/client URLs just because you accidentally copied a space at the start or the hostname doesn't resolve in your current environment, etc.
- majewsky 8y ago
  Because there is a huge difference between those two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
  - vntok 8y ago
    If the browser absolutely 100% of the time knew that difference and showed "Wikipedia FR > Canada", wouldn't it be much simpler for the average user? The browser could even show specialized UI such as "FR" as a clickable dropdown menu to allow users to switch languages. Chrome already does this for searching a single website through the address bar (type domain.com TAB) Basically these changes are not thought for you. You are not representative of the average Web user.
    - px1999 8y ago
      Maybe it could show "Canada - Wikipedia" like the page authors intended as a title. Maybe if the page authors want to have links between languages, they could code that in a standard markup language themselves. These aren't decisions for a useragent to make, and there aren't enough browsers out there that people have a reasonable choice. Bastardising the url isn't a solution to anything, it's a step towards something that Google, not users, want (in making AMP "trivial").
      - vntok 8y ago
        A useragent is literally a user's agent, it is supposed to help its user browse their target website. It is not supposed to help the target website show things to the user.
    - Lyrkan 8y ago
      Hiding the URL would be a terrible idea, no matter how much "simpler" it would be for the average user: it would either only be enabled for a handful of websites chosen by Google (which would mean having an inconsistent UI) or create a lot of security issues (what if someone creates a website and manages to also display "Wikipedia FR" with a similar layout?).
    - 8y ago
- always_good 8y ago
  It matters because deep-linking is possible on the web. Hiding it just seems like a trivial UI matter that makes things slightly more obnoxious when you do care. I'd be surprised if only showing the domain vs domain+path made any difference on phishing results. I don't think these little tricks do much for the user. For example, browsers now highlight https websites with green in the url bar and show a little lock icon. But how is that actionable information for the user? To what extent does that mean you can trust that website, and how does the average person interpret it? Phishing websites use https, too. I would avoid stealing any pages from Safari's UI. That browser doesn't even show favicons on browser tabs to let you quickly distinguish them.
- eponeponepon 8y ago
  All they actually care about is "Wikipedia - Canada". Which is right there on the page.

>The change was made for them, not for you Except, those same users also don't care about things in the address bar. So the change hurts the group of users that actually do care.

ehsankia 8y ago

They didn't care so far because it was so confusing. The hope is that by showing something that's user-relevant (the name of the website name and the security level), it will become more useful for the average user. Why should a user see: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210dj9102d12 https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada?utm=asdioasd&arg=j210d... when all they care about is "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada"?

nqzero 8y ago
the only thing you've changed is now those 99.9% users can't even find the information they need to ask the .1% for help great work
nkkollaw 8y ago
According to Apple, they care about "wikipedia.org", only.
freehunter 8y ago
Because arguments aren't always useless like in your example. Might as well just do away with the whole URL bar and just have a green checkmark if Chrome thinks it's the site you want. I mean, why should a user see "Wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada" when all they care about is "This is the Wikipedia Page for Canada"?
- md_ 8y ago
  I know you’re being sarcastic, but if chrome could, with perfect accuracy, indicate if this was “the site you want”, why not do away with the url? Mind you, I’m not suggesting to do away with linking, as some rando suggested this implies. (While chrome doesn’t show the protocol prefix, it still copies the prefix when you copy the url, so imagine a similar ui.) But for most users, wouldn’t a ui that shows “server identity” in some more user-coherent way be what they want? In particular, do subdomains help or hurt phishing detection?
  - freehunter 8y ago
    If we could, I'd be all for it. Have an option that says "show URL bar or not" and by default hide the URL bar, optionally show the whole thing. Especially on space-constrained devices like cell phones where every pixel counts. Just show the page's title. I think we're a long way away from that ideal, though, and some web pages may not be designed with this ideal in mind.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    You're making a hypothetical based on "with perfect accuracy"... but the much simpler change here (www vs. no www) is not done "with perfect accuracy", as clearly outlined by a bunch of comments in this thread.
    - ehsankia 8y ago
      So you're saying we should show all users www., just because that one site in a billion that shows a different non-www. page, for that one user in a million that would even notice that difference? Chrome is a browser for the mainstream people. The feature you're asking for is for power users and extreme edge cases.
softawre 8y ago
I like how HN cuts off the end of that url.
type0 8y ago
http://www.example.com http://www.example.com https://www.example.com https://www.example.com http://example.com http://example.com https://example.com https://example.com do not have to be the same website and there are cases where it isn't the same site! Which site you visit does matter and not just for internet banking. If it becomes that easy if we hide things maybe we should hide the half of the traffic lights as well.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Those examples don't prove anything. First off, the http ones would appear different, they would have no lock. And 99.999999% of websites don't have a different www. and non-www. page. Showing www. for that 1 in a billion site, for that 1 in a million user, is insane.
ryandrake 8y ago
I wonder if there is any research or evidence that users actually find “www.” confusing enough to go through the trouble of removing it.
peterwwillis 8y ago
What if the user sees "Wik1pedia.org/wiki/Canada"? Or "аррӏе.com"? Hiding random parts of the address isn't going to make browsing the web better. The main purpose of URLs is for hyperlinks, not as a highly intuitive user interface. Users who don't know how URLs work don't care what is up there. They only care that what they are looking at is what they expect, and a way to get to where they want to go. And that's a complicated problem. The URL bar hiding thing isn't for users, it's for Google to push Google search. That's why they attempted to remove the URL bar entirely four years ago and replace it with a search bar.
- md_ 8y ago
  Don’t Firefox and Safari also have a single bar for searches? Yet neither company runs a search engine. I don’t suppose it’s possible this is just better for most users?
  - Multicomp 8y ago
    Firefox will allow you to search via the address bar, but it still has a separate search bar to the right by default.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      This doesn't appear to be the case? [1]:https://www.techworld.com/download/internet-tools/firefox-63-beta-3-3250000/ https://www.techworld.com/download/internet-tools/firefox-63...
      - r3bl 8y ago
        It still exists, but the default changed. Now you can go to menu -> Customize and drag it where you want.
    - qu4z-2 8y ago
      Also, if you go into about:config and turn off keyword.enabled, the address bar will no longer search. It's very useful if you don't want to Google internal/client URLs just because you accidentally copied a space at the start or the hostname doesn't resolve in your current environment, etc.
majewsky 8y ago
Because there is a huge difference between those two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada
- vntok 8y ago
  If the browser absolutely 100% of the time knew that difference and showed "Wikipedia FR > Canada", wouldn't it be much simpler for the average user? The browser could even show specialized UI such as "FR" as a clickable dropdown menu to allow users to switch languages. Chrome already does this for searching a single website through the address bar (type domain.com TAB) Basically these changes are not thought for you. You are not representative of the average Web user.
  - px1999 8y ago
    Maybe it could show "Canada - Wikipedia" like the page authors intended as a title. Maybe if the page authors want to have links between languages, they could code that in a standard markup language themselves. These aren't decisions for a useragent to make, and there aren't enough browsers out there that people have a reasonable choice. Bastardising the url isn't a solution to anything, it's a step towards something that Google, not users, want (in making AMP "trivial").
    - vntok 8y ago
      A useragent is literally a user's agent, it is supposed to help its user browse their target website. It is not supposed to help the target website show things to the user.
  - Lyrkan 8y ago
    Hiding the URL would be a terrible idea, no matter how much "simpler" it would be for the average user: it would either only be enabled for a handful of websites chosen by Google (which would mean having an inconsistent UI) or create a lot of security issues (what if someone creates a website and manages to also display "Wikipedia FR" with a similar layout?).
  - 8y ago
always_good 8y ago
It matters because deep-linking is possible on the web. Hiding it just seems like a trivial UI matter that makes things slightly more obnoxious when you do care. I'd be surprised if only showing the domain vs domain+path made any difference on phishing results. I don't think these little tricks do much for the user. For example, browsers now highlight https websites with green in the url bar and show a little lock icon. But how is that actionable information for the user? To what extent does that mean you can trust that website, and how does the average person interpret it? Phishing websites use https, too. I would avoid stealing any pages from Safari's UI. That browser doesn't even show favicons on browser tabs to let you quickly distinguish them.
eponeponepon 8y ago
All they actually care about is "Wikipedia - Canada". Which is right there on the page.