4 ms·

I'm told urls with IDs and query strings look "unprofessional" in today's web.

by astura 5y ago

mewpmewp2 5y ago
Yes, because urls are part of UX and should be as readable and meaningful as possible. It is not just about SEO.
- dcow 5y ago
  What if my resource is indexed by GUID and I want to build a REST API?
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    That wouldn't force you to use query strings. I agree it's not always a mistake for a URL to contain an ID value of some sort. How else would online shops assign a URL to each product they offer?
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    For REST APIs standard would be /resources?query=something&offset=50&limit=50 etc for list of resources. And single resource. /resources/:resourceId, so a bit different for APIs as opposed to user facing urls. While for a single resource when user facing it would be /resource/human-readable-resource-slug.
- dylan604 5y ago
  The trend in browsers is to not display the URL, so who cares what it looks like? Mobile hides the address bar as soon as possible to regain the real estate. A certain desktop browser also received a lot of flack about only displaying the domain name rather than the path/query. Also, if these are the same UX rules that have brought us worthless cookie screens, I'm not sure I'd put stock in their opinions, but that just me joey not-a-frontend-guy-just-a-user beercan.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    You're under the impression that cookie screens were intended as a UX improvement?
  - dspillett 5y ago
    The requirement to notify and give an opt out option regarding cookies is intended as a privacy improvement. Most cookie screens are deliberately designed as bad UX to make it very difficult to properly opt out and very easy to accidentally and permanently opt-in.
    - sharken 5y ago
      Also when visiting a new site, the last thing on my mind is the cookie popup. Here the main goal is to get rid of it fast, which more often than not leads to accepting all cookies the site offers. And bad cookie UX ensures that. I would actually prefer to never see a cookie popup and then deal with privacy another way, if that was an option.
      - horstmeyer 5y ago
        There is a Firefox plugin for that. Not on the computer will look up the name later.
      - dspillett 5y ago
        > Here the main goal is to get rid of it fast, which more often than not leads to accepting all cookies the site offers. My fast route out is to close the tab. Same for auto-playing audio, distracting animations/video, and other irritations. So far I don't think I've missed out on anything of significance that way. There are some sites that are useful enough for me to have spent time clicking tens of things, beyond that it turns out that I can live quite happily without the others.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > Most cookie screens are deliberately designed as bad UX to make it very difficult to properly opt out and very easy to accidentally and permanently opt-in. This is true, but if I recall correctly it's plainly against the law for them to do this. Websites continue to do it because they're fully aware that enforcement is laughable.

I'm told urls with IDs and query strings look "unprofessional" in today's web.

by astura 5y ago

I'm told urls with IDs and query strings look "unprofessional" in today's web.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

Yes, because urls are part of UX and should be as readable and meaningful as possible. It is not just about SEO.

dcow 5y ago
What if my resource is indexed by GUID and I want to build a REST API?
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  That wouldn't force you to use query strings. I agree it's not always a mistake for a URL to contain an ID value of some sort. How else would online shops assign a URL to each product they offer?
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  For REST APIs standard would be /resources?query=something&offset=50&limit=50 etc for list of resources. And single resource. /resources/:resourceId, so a bit different for APIs as opposed to user facing urls. While for a single resource when user facing it would be /resource/human-readable-resource-slug.
dylan604 5y ago
The trend in browsers is to not display the URL, so who cares what it looks like? Mobile hides the address bar as soon as possible to regain the real estate. A certain desktop browser also received a lot of flack about only displaying the domain name rather than the path/query. Also, if these are the same UX rules that have brought us worthless cookie screens, I'm not sure I'd put stock in their opinions, but that just me joey not-a-frontend-guy-just-a-user beercan.
- kadoban 5y ago
  You're under the impression that cookie screens were intended as a UX improvement?
- dspillett 5y ago
  The requirement to notify and give an opt out option regarding cookies is intended as a privacy improvement. Most cookie screens are deliberately designed as bad UX to make it very difficult to properly opt out and very easy to accidentally and permanently opt-in.
  - sharken 5y ago
    Also when visiting a new site, the last thing on my mind is the cookie popup. Here the main goal is to get rid of it fast, which more often than not leads to accepting all cookies the site offers. And bad cookie UX ensures that. I would actually prefer to never see a cookie popup and then deal with privacy another way, if that was an option.
    - horstmeyer 5y ago
      There is a Firefox plugin for that. Not on the computer will look up the name later.
    - dspillett 5y ago
      > Here the main goal is to get rid of it fast, which more often than not leads to accepting all cookies the site offers. My fast route out is to close the tab. Same for auto-playing audio, distracting animations/video, and other irritations. So far I don't think I've missed out on anything of significance that way. There are some sites that are useful enough for me to have spent time clicking tens of things, beyond that it turns out that I can live quite happily without the others.
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    > Most cookie screens are deliberately designed as bad UX to make it very difficult to properly opt out and very easy to accidentally and permanently opt-in. This is true, but if I recall correctly it's plainly against the law for them to do this. Websites continue to do it because they're fully aware that enforcement is laughable.