6 ms·

I'm not sure why everyone is so up in arms here. I don't see how this change is detrimental to the web or somehow good for Google. Hiding the "https://" https:/

I'm not sure why everyone is so up in arms here. I don't see how this change is detrimental to the web or somehow good for Google. Hiding the "https://" https://" seems like a perfectly fine idea as long as there's a clear way to distinguish between https and http pages. Safari's done this for a long time; https pages display a tiny padlock icon and http pages display a much more prominent "Not Secure — " prefix (i.e. the obvious display is when you're insecure, which is the right way to go about things). Hiding "www" seems less meaningful. I'm not really sure what the motivation is there, beyond the fact that the "www" prefix is mostly just aesthetics. My best guess is they want the url to start with "google.com" instead of "www.google.com", except that's not helpful from a security standpoint at all and might be slightly detrimental, if it trains people that the very first word they encounter is the most important, as paypal.whatever.com is not in fact paypal. But a lot of domains already elide the "www" anyway. Of course, in both cases I am assuming that putting focus on the URL bar will display the full URL.

on_and_off 7y ago
>I'm not sure why everyone is so up in arms here It is a change made by Google and it also dares try to simplify things for non tech savvy users so it has to be evil !
- penagwin 7y ago
  To me the problem is that it obscures the page URI, making it an unreliable source for exactly where you are. Whether this is a real concern for usual end users no I don't think so. It's mostly more annoying for the HN crowd who need to see it for development or are very security sensitive.
davman 7y ago
Its not always just aesthetic unfortunately. Try this shining example from British local government: http://www.manchester.gov.uk http://www.manchester.gov.uk vs http://manchester.gov.uk http://manchester.gov.uk
- johnday 7y ago
  Those seem to redirect to the same place.
  - jonnybarnes 7y ago
    Not for me, http://www.manchester.gov.uk http://www.manchester.gov.uk -> https://www.manchester.gov.uk https://www.manchester.gov.uk, all good http://manchester.gov.uk http://manchester.gov.uk -> https://manchester.gov.uk https://manchester.gov.uk which gives me a bad tls cert error
    - Avamander 7y ago
      So the problem is theirs.
      - idbehold 7y ago
        Yes, as in Google's.
        Avamander 7y ago
        Webserver misconfigurations are hosts' problems.
        darkarmani 7y ago
        But now you cannot distinguish between the 2 URLs. They look the same in the URL field but one is broken.
        Avamander 7y ago
        The website host can absolutely distinguish between the two (two clicks on title bar). I guess this change has another upside of forcing website hosts to have working web server configurations
    - 7y ago
dao- 7y ago
> Of course, in both cases I am assuming that putting focus on the URL bar will display the full URL. It won't. From the issue tracker: "The full URL is also revealed by clicking twice in the URL bar on desktop," in other words, merely focusing the URL bar won't be enough.
- anfogoat 7y ago
  Boy, they really don't want you to see it.
- kart23 7y ago
  Ok this is bad. On safari, I think it makes sense. They just show the domain and a lock icon if there is https to make the ui cleaner, and if you click on the adress bar, the full url shows. It's a good user flow, and it makes sense. This google move does not make sense, especially when people are so used to the full url showing, its going to confuse a lot of users.
- eridius 7y ago
  How does that work? If you put focus on the URL bar but it doesn't show the whole URL, how are you supposed to edit it?
  - dao- 7y ago
    On focus you can only copy or replace the URL, not edit it. You need to click a second time to edit.
bassman9000 7y ago
clear way tiny padlock ok
holstvoogd 7y ago
I think the main issue people have with this all is that we all f*cked up by making Chrome into the new IE6 by pushing it to a monopoly position and only now realizing that. So now we get angry at Google every time we are confronted by our mistakes, for instance when they push a change upon us that we are not especially thrilled about. Also, we love change as long as we are the ones doing it. All other changes are bad. We == developers
- xemdetia 7y ago
  I've been feeling like this for a while because at least back when chrome first hit it seemed like Mozilla and Google were mostly competing but modestly equal interests. Then Android took off. Then even the fringe browsers became webkit to keep up. Then about this time Google started testing the waters for this level of pushing through standards, and they've just kept pushing to what should violate something other than morality, but I don't feel like there is an appropriate mechanism to slap their wrist and push back. I really wish that most of these chrome standards would stop smelling as much "I changed it because it didn't work for my current project and I guess I'll force a standards change to meet my project deadline." I have not felt like most of the Chrome changes I have observed recently are given more thought than an intern/junior dev would give it and they don't have a Linus to tell them to stop breaking userspace.
ggggtez 7y ago
"Security sensitive context" are the key words here. On mobile devices, you get, what, 300 pixels across to show the URL? You want to show as much relevant info as you can, and if you can summarize "https://www." https://www." then you get more real estate for the domain name itself. It seems reasonable to me. I get the hate for FAANG, but some people just lose their minds.
playpause 7y ago
I'm not sure either. URLs obviously aren't going anywhere, even if Google makes this UI change. Social media and email still exist. People aren't going to suddenly stop sharing links to news and blog posts. If Google Chrome really makes it too hard to copy the URL of the current page, then even my least technically literate friends will switch to another browser – they all send each other URLs all the time. This part is puzzling though: > The full URL is also revealed by clicking twice in the URL bar on desktop, and once on mobile. Twice? I can't picture how that will work as a UI. What happens after the first click?
liveoneggs 7y ago
people are up in arms because of AMP

on_and_off 7y ago

>I'm not sure why everyone is so up in arms here It is a change made by Google and it also dares try to simplify things for non tech savvy users so it has to be evil !

penagwin 7y ago
To me the problem is that it obscures the page URI, making it an unreliable source for exactly where you are. Whether this is a real concern for usual end users no I don't think so. It's mostly more annoying for the HN crowd who need to see it for development or are very security sensitive.

davman 7y ago

Its not always just aesthetic unfortunately. Try this shining example from British local government: http://www.manchester.gov.uk http://www.manchester.gov.uk vs http://manchester.gov.uk http://manchester.gov.uk

johnday 7y ago
Those seem to redirect to the same place.
- jonnybarnes 7y ago
  Not for me, http://www.manchester.gov.uk http://www.manchester.gov.uk -> https://www.manchester.gov.uk https://www.manchester.gov.uk, all good http://manchester.gov.uk http://manchester.gov.uk -> https://manchester.gov.uk https://manchester.gov.uk which gives me a bad tls cert error
  - Avamander 7y ago
    So the problem is theirs.
    - idbehold 7y ago
      Yes, as in Google's.
      - Avamander 7y ago
        Webserver misconfigurations are hosts' problems.
        darkarmani 7y ago
        But now you cannot distinguish between the 2 URLs. They look the same in the URL field but one is broken.
        Avamander 7y ago
        The website host can absolutely distinguish between the two (two clicks on title bar). I guess this change has another upside of forcing website hosts to have working web server configurations
  - 7y ago

dao- 7y ago

> Of course, in both cases I am assuming that putting focus on the URL bar will display the full URL. It won't. From the issue tracker: "The full URL is also revealed by clicking twice in the URL bar on desktop," in other words, merely focusing the URL bar won't be enough.

anfogoat 7y ago
Boy, they really don't want you to see it.
kart23 7y ago
Ok this is bad. On safari, I think it makes sense. They just show the domain and a lock icon if there is https to make the ui cleaner, and if you click on the adress bar, the full url shows. It's a good user flow, and it makes sense. This google move does not make sense, especially when people are so used to the full url showing, its going to confuse a lot of users.
eridius 7y ago
How does that work? If you put focus on the URL bar but it doesn't show the whole URL, how are you supposed to edit it?
- dao- 7y ago
  On focus you can only copy or replace the URL, not edit it. You need to click a second time to edit.

bassman9000 7y ago

clear way tiny padlock ok

holstvoogd 7y ago

I think the main issue people have with this all is that we all f*cked up by making Chrome into the new IE6 by pushing it to a monopoly position and only now realizing that. So now we get angry at Google every time we are confronted by our mistakes, for instance when they push a change upon us that we are not especially thrilled about. Also, we love change as long as we are the ones doing it. All other changes are bad. We == developers

xemdetia 7y ago
I've been feeling like this for a while because at least back when chrome first hit it seemed like Mozilla and Google were mostly competing but modestly equal interests. Then Android took off. Then even the fringe browsers became webkit to keep up. Then about this time Google started testing the waters for this level of pushing through standards, and they've just kept pushing to what should violate something other than morality, but I don't feel like there is an appropriate mechanism to slap their wrist and push back. I really wish that most of these chrome standards would stop smelling as much "I changed it because it didn't work for my current project and I guess I'll force a standards change to meet my project deadline." I have not felt like most of the Chrome changes I have observed recently are given more thought than an intern/junior dev would give it and they don't have a Linus to tell them to stop breaking userspace.

ggggtez 7y ago

"Security sensitive context" are the key words here. On mobile devices, you get, what, 300 pixels across to show the URL? You want to show as much relevant info as you can, and if you can summarize "https://www." https://www." then you get more real estate for the domain name itself. It seems reasonable to me. I get the hate for FAANG, but some people just lose their minds.

playpause 7y ago

I'm not sure either. URLs obviously aren't going anywhere, even if Google makes this UI change. Social media and email still exist. People aren't going to suddenly stop sharing links to news and blog posts. If Google Chrome really makes it too hard to copy the URL of the current page, then even my least technically literate friends will switch to another browser – they all send each other URLs all the time. This part is puzzling though: > The full URL is also revealed by clicking twice in the URL bar on desktop, and once on mobile. Twice? I can't picture how that will work as a UI. What happens after the first click?

liveoneggs 7y ago

people are up in arms because of AMP