3 ms·

"Google's Chrome browser will give users the ability to kill that final remnant of the fact that they're actually using the Web - the address bar." Wrong. File

by bravura 15y ago

"Google's Chrome browser will give users the ability to kill that final remnant of the fact that they're actually using the Web - the address bar." Wrong. File system browsers (e.g. Nautilus) typically show the URI, viz. the name of the folder that you are browsing. This is a savvy move on Google's part because deprecating the URL means that you have no option for finding resources, except search. Search through your browsing history. Search through your filesystem. Search through the web. Using search more can be pretty sexy, if your search works well.

TomOfTTB 15y ago
I think you make a good point but I disagree on the conclusion. Even if it works well I don't think Search is the be-all-end-all In my opinion the ideal web is one that is properly categorized via url. For example, if I knew all magazines had an author listing at "magazine_url/Authors" then it would be easier for me to type in Time.com/Authors then it would be to use Search. Now obviously things aren't that well organized right now but REST has done a lot to move us in that direction and I have no reason to think that wouldn't continue. If things are someday that organized it won't matter if users have grown accustomed to hiding the url. So while I agree this is savvy for Google because it makes the user more dependent on search I don't think this is good for the web.
- dacort 15y ago
  That works for you because you know how the web works. Most people don't. They'll type "facebook" into search instead of going to facebook.com. If the search is good enough, the url isn't necessary.
- freshhawk 15y ago
  I don't think bravura was arguing that it was good for anyone but google. I agree that's it's bad for the web, but historically walled gardens seem to always fail in the long run but google's attempt to build a UI "wall" around the open internet seems to be working quite well. I'm guessing UI people will praise it for "making things easier" for the imaginary "grandma on the internet", security focused people will rightly be scared by this and phishers will absolutely love the idea.

by bravura 15y ago

TomOfTTB 15y ago

I think you make a good point but I disagree on the conclusion. Even if it works well I don't think Search is the be-all-end-all In my opinion the ideal web is one that is properly categorized via url. For example, if I knew all magazines had an author listing at "magazine_url/Authors" then it would be easier for me to type in Time.com/Authors then it would be to use Search. Now obviously things aren't that well organized right now but REST has done a lot to move us in that direction and I have no reason to think that wouldn't continue. If things are someday that organized it won't matter if users have grown accustomed to hiding the url. So while I agree this is savvy for Google because it makes the user more dependent on search I don't think this is good for the web.

dacort 15y ago
That works for you because you know how the web works. Most people don't. They'll type "facebook" into search instead of going to facebook.com. If the search is good enough, the url isn't necessary.
freshhawk 15y ago
I don't think bravura was arguing that it was good for anyone but google. I agree that's it's bad for the web, but historically walled gardens seem to always fail in the long run but google's attempt to build a UI "wall" around the open internet seems to be working quite well. I'm guessing UI people will praise it for "making things easier" for the imaginary "grandma on the internet", security focused people will rightly be scared by this and phishers will absolutely love the idea.