12 ms·
Short URLs: Why and How
- xboxnolifes 4y agoThe only use-case I've found for short URLs is in media broadcasts (or similar). It's the only scenario I find that shortening is necessary, as the audience will have to actually type out the URL. In text formats, you generally have access to hyperlinking text to the extended URL.
- blenderdt 4y agoThe "They’re enough" is ofcourse a little silly. Yes there are thousands of combinations if your short url contains any character. But his example is about words and that will leave you with less combinations. But I like the essence of the post.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y agoExactly. Unless your blog is incredibly broad, you're probably writing about the same subject more than once. What is the author going to do when they write about short urls next time? /su2?
- blenderdt 4y agoOn the other hand: limitations stimulate creativity. You will get more creative in choosing titles.
- oneeyedpigeon 4y agoI think I'd prefer it if you were creative with the content of your posts rather than your urls :) I mean, if you think there's no value in the content of the url whatsoever, then just start at /1 and work upwards...
- tibet_13 4y agoI don't see any problem with /su2. Or /su3.
- T3RMINATED 4y ago
- Brajeshwar 4y agoI own a 3-letter domain with a 2-letter TLD and still spells my family name. Many of my friends finds it cool when I share links via that domain. The links are indeed easy to remember but it comes at a higher yearly cost of renewal and I had forgotten to renew twice. Luckily, I was able to re-register them (nobody wants it, ;-)). Example https://oin.am/rr/ https://oin.am/rr/
- blowski 4y agoMy name is Dan Blows, and my domain is da.nblo.ws, which I thought was the coolest thing ever. Most people are confused or don’t even notice it.
- Brajeshwar 4y agoAh! The del.i.cio.us days.
- zhte415 4y agoHaving lunch with a friend he said something I didn't expect, > but my C drive crashed and I lost the bookmarks. There's still a Delicious market.
- joshu 4y agodel.icio.us
- oneeyedpigeon 4y agoI wonder if the parent was being sarcastic. I could never remember where the dots went; I suspect I wasn't the only one, and that was probably why they end up changing to delicious.com.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 4y ago
- blowski 4y agoI’m it sure what this optimises for. Those who care about SEO use long slugs for the extra juice. Those who don’t can use IDs or whatever works for them. Shareable URLs - still need to share the domain, and most of us (including sive.rs) don’t have a particularly memorable one.
- Brajeshwar 4y agoYou forgot one key thing -- fun. I do these things mostly for fun and smiles, for me and others.
- mikae1 4y agoDepending on how much your write, URL collisions can naturally become a real problem. If you use a SSG then all your post HTML documents will be in the same directory, forever. This isn't a problem if you don't spit out posts, but if you post a lot your directory can become rather unwieldy. I'd say, at least throw a year in there: /2022/su/.
- Brajeshwar 4y agoThis is indeed a big problem I faced when I moved from WordPress to Jekyll. I decided to segregate them by year (very unique); so my articles/posts are /yyyy/foo-bar/. I did decided on the URL loooong back in WordPress as that was the most sane thing I could do while still writing a lot but have some segregation. E.g. There are about 93 files/posts in the "2006" folder for my website.
- mijamo 4y agoSSG can usually be configured. You could have whatever folder structure you want and still have all the URLs straight under the root.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mro_name 4y agoYears are a bliss once you want to change your styling and keep an archive as is. Untouched. No work, no risk, nothing breaks. Cool URIs don't change. Not even their styling.
- einsty 4y ago“Cool URI’s Don’t Change” … https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI https://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI
- SenHeng 4y agoI manage this problem by appending a 5 digit number in front each file, ie. 00001-Hello-world.md that I strip from the URL. It solves multiple problems for me. 1. All articles are sorted automatically. 2. I can visually see how many drafts I have (drafts are 00000-, published at 00nnn-)
- wiradikusuma 4y agoI use mydomain.ext/long-descriptive-name for SEO but have my own url shortener, with.id/something (with.id is my short domain, and very "generic" name). Basically I follow Google like their go.gl shortener.
- chubot 4y agoPG's website pretty much does this e.g. from 2003: http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html most recent post in 2022: http://www.paulgraham.com/heresy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/heresy.html I'm not sure I would want to have all my writing in a single directory, but I guess you can't argue with 20 years of longevity ... on both sivers' site and PG's.
- onion2k 4y agoYou can't determine the file system structure from the URLs. The can map directly, but they don't have to Also... http?
- cinntaile 4y agoWhy not http? Secure connections add overhead. It's not like this site contains any secrets?
- andai 4y agoI think the motivation for using HTTPS with static content is to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks that inject advertising or malware into pages. I have read about governments, ISPs and hotels doing that sort of thing. One example of what can be done is to cause the users to DDoS a third party.
- xmprt 4y agohttp is still susceptible to man in the middle attacks even if the site contains no secrets. You have no guarantee that the contents of the website haven't been tampered with (not that attackers would have much incentive to tamper with a blog).
- cinntaile 4y agoThat's pretty much my point, there is no reason to meddle with the contents here. It's different if you live in a country where your ISP automatically MiTMs you (as a sibling comment to yours pointed out), but that's not a thing here at least. If you know that's a threat and it bothers you, you would likely already have measures in place anyway? But I admit it's a valid reason to have https.
- indigodaddy 4y agoRegarding the example of instead of hi.html just name the file hi and use the nginx Config “default_type text/html” —- is there an equivalent to this for other webservers (Eg Caddy etc) ? Perhaps it would be cleaner to just create a directory called hi with and index.html?
- unobatbayar 4y agoThat Nginx config is so beautiful compared to Apache .htaccess configuration for the same result.
- ErikMarf 4y agoI usually create a "file filter" instead. Keep the extension as is (hi.html) and then use the try_files directive in nginx to make the server look for files with the same path using .html as an example. It has been a while since I used nginx but it looks something like this: try_files $uri.html
- innocenat 4y agoIs it? Assigning text/html to extensionless file would be: <FilesMatch "^[^.]+$"> ForceType text/html </FilesMatch> Which I don't think is that bad, compared to RewriteRule's.
- ErikMarf 4y agoI usually create a "file filter" instead. Keep the extension as is (hi.html) and then use the try_files directive in nginx to make the server look for files with the same path using .html as an example. It has been a while since I used nginx but it looks something like this: try_files $uri.html
- indigodaddy 4y agoAh yes I remember stumbling on this years ago when I was digging on something. Thanks for the reminder!
- innocenat 4y ago
- motyar 4y agoYes, short is always good, I recently got http://moty.ar http://moty.ar
- cryptos 4y agoThat depends on the context!
- subpar 4y agohttps://dvd.qa/horse https://dvd.qa/horse checking in!
- Jaruzel 4y agoOh wow. But... why? :D
- naiv 4y agoI would have expected something about a super user with the 'su' url. So short urls like this don't make sense if they are not explicit and you don't have a corresponding lookup table
- hombre_fatal 4y agoYeah, I prefer something more meaningful but still succinct like PG's essay urls: http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html In OP's case, /short-urls is succinct yet it hints at the content.
- taubek 4y agoHow many people type the whole URL and how many access it over Google, QR code, or from other site? This is good if content is unique. I find URLs with dates useful when I want to quickly assess how fresh is the content.
- andai 4y agoI often find articles that don't have the date at all, and the information turns out to be really out of date. Is hiding the date some kind of SEO trend?
- chillfox 4y agoRumor has it that Google penalizes content with a date older than a year.
- raverbashing 4y agoWow what a great reason to take dates out of articles! /s Yeah, maybe if you're SEOing for a content farm bot, but if you have actual content, that you and other people care about, add the fsking date.
- andai 4y agoBut doesn't their crawler keep track of when a page first appeared, and when it's updated? I wouldn't expect just removing the date to work in this regard, but I don't know.
- dewey 4y ago> I often find articles that don't have the date at all At the same time I also always find articles that have an "Updated at" timestamp of a few days ago, I guess that's somehow done automatically to gain some recency points for SEO, not sure if that or removing the timestamp is more annoying.
- dijit 4y ago> I often find articles that don't have the date at all I hate this trend, one theory I heard was that it helps the content appear "ever-green". Another theory is that it helps hide inactivity of content updates; like 100s of articles will be produced in a short span of time and then nothing for months or even years. But yes, I hate it.
- medv 4y agoI create my own for this purpose; https://ï.at https://xn--gda.at It’s just a nginx with redirects on pages))
- pvinis 4y agothese xn-- urls are cool when you display them, like yours with ï, but I don't like the xn-- representation. I got a couple of them, but I end up using p0l.co, like p0l.co/55, also just a redirect list basically, on GitHub with netlify.
- rsync 4y agoI don't like this at all - there is value in a hierarchical naming structure - even if it doesn't represent actual directories. A simple example is: https://www.kozubik.com/ https://www.kozubik.com/ ... where you can find "items": https://www.kozubik.com/items/ https://www.kozubik.com/items/ ... and one thing inside of "items" is an article on NDS emitters: https://www.kozubik.com/items/nds/ https://www.kozubik.com/items/nds/ ... which contains supporting multimedia objects: https://www.kozubik.com/items/nds/images/ https://www.kozubik.com/items/nds/images/ Not only do you know where you are in the tree, but it is also discoverable: by using index.html default pages and your web servers directory indexing code, you can have a very flexible resource that is easy to navigate.
- nittanymount 4y agoagree, about to say this...
- markdown 4y ago"items" isn't very useful. Have either: example.com/<article_title> or, if categories exist: example.com/<category_name>/<article_name>
- xcambar 4y agoA poor exemple doesn't make for a poor argument. I like hierarchical URLs because they allow me to try and find more content by stripping the end of the URL fo see what is up the hierarchy.
- woojoo666 4y agoThis sounds more like a workaround to a website with poor navigation and UX, but ultimately you are still at the mercy of the website, eg if they have /articles/<title> links but throw 404 when you try to access /articles directly. It's up to the website to choose how navigation works, and I don't think we should constrain the structure of website urls just to support these hacky workarounds. Now there are other reasons for hierarchal urls mentioned in the thread, like providing better semantic meaning when representing content that is already hierarchal. Though I find that that is rarely the case. For example, you might think to represent blog posts like myblog.com/articles/<title>. But you could also do it like myblog.com/<article year>/title (eg myblog.com/2017/why-choose-short-urls). I've seen both formats, and both are valid to a certain degree. So choosing one is a bit arbitrary. But if you allow both formats, that just pushes the ambiguity onto the user. For example if the user wants to bookmark the article, which url do they bookmark? From my experience, data follows graph structures, so trying to force a hierarchal structure and doing things like encoding paths in urls, feels too arbitrary and adds unnecessary ambiguity.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago> Go to sive.rs/ff for my talk about the first follower I absolutely will not. At least with known URL shorteners I know that’s what I’m getting and can inspect further. When I get links like this I assume I’m getting spam or malware. Almost all of the time it’s spam.
- aethertron 4y agoYou went to sive.rs/su but sive.rs/ff is a bridge too far? URLs, shortened or not, can send you anywhere. You don't know where they'll take you (unless you control them).
- eyelidlessness 4y agoDownvote all you want and enjoy your craft URLs, may they all be safe for aol of you.
- DoctorOW 4y agoThe downvotes are because sive.rs is not a URL shortner. It's the blog this post (both the one you're quoting, and the link within) is written on. It's advocating for shorter permalinks.
- miteshalign 4y ago
- eyelidlessness 4y agoOh so I got downvoted for the thing I already said I disagree with. Cool. Thanks for the explanation I guess?
- saura 4y agoI think it is a good idea in some cases, but not for everything. Keeping the blog posts under the blog/ route doesn't seem like digital pollution to me.
- batterylow 4y agoI have a short domain name, but only as a personal URL shortener! Mine is https://m8.fyi https://m8.fyi
- vyuh 4y agoI like this idea, It'll be good to have the best of both worlds. Is there a way to optimize search engine visibility for such short urls? perhaps with a good title, meta tags having keywords etc.? Is there a HTML meta tag that gives the search engine crawlers an alternate hierarchical url for the same page? I believe setting up the server to do this is not too difficult.
- DeathArrow 4y agoI use Restful URLs.
- fdschoeneman 4y agoI am curious to know more about the implications for SEO.
- kevincox 4y agoProbably not great. The understanding is that having keywords in the URL is valuable. This makes sense since these locations are "more expensive" so if the keyword is there it must actually be relevant. So it would make sense to weight keywords found in the following locations in decreasing value: 1. Public Suffix Domain (costs money to register). 2. Subdomain (255 char limit in domains) 3. URL (generally URLs aren't too long) 4. Content (basically free to stuff keywords into).
- minimilian 4y agoIt's also nice to stick to the original 14-character limit on Unix file names.
- adesanmi 4y agoI would love some sort of standard for "short" URLs that are primarily designed for sharing. This would serve as an alternative to the current – usually hierarchial – URLs that are primarily designed around SEO.
- cryptos 4y agoThe bas thing with existing third-party URL shorteners is that they might (and do) go out of business at any time! I'm not sure whether we need a standard for it, but it might be a good idea to be indendent of such external services. A simple, generic way could be a hash of the original URL with a compact representation: http://example.com/some/path/to/stuff?filter1=asdf&filter2=90#positionX http://example.com/s/Wq_2 /s stands for "short" and the ID is the hash representation. If you use a-zA-Z0-9 plus some URL safe characters like _ it should be reasonably short even for large sites. The CMS or whatever software doesn't have to to implement something, because it is mostly just a generic URL shortener running on the same host.
- kevincox 4y agoIt would love to see something like a "short" link tag. For example imagine that YouTube provided the following tag on video pages <link rel=short href="https://youtu.be/abcdef"/> Then copying the URL could copy the short link instead. That being said I like when the URL is readable. The YouTube example works because everyone knows that YouTube is a video. Presumably for non-video links they could use something like /user/foobar to differentiate from their "main product". But for blog posts I would much rather see something like /short-urls rather than /su as the reader gets nothing from the first one.
- sysadm1n 4y agoYou could also specify the corresponding short URL of a page with a META tag: <meta property="shortlink" content="https://bit.ly/shortlink"> Just because it's not a standard doesn't mean you can't use it. This is sort of futureproofing incase it does become a standard.
- 4y ago
- CaptArmchair 4y ago> You can remember them. You can avoid the search engine step. No need to search when you already know the answer. Which means… You don't know what you don't know. Discovery is about leveraging common heuristics. The more context information that's available, the easier it gets to get to the answer. Giving the least amount of information runs counter to that. A URL is a reference, an identifier, that uniquely references a resource. A search engine essentially captures a ton of context information that you can leverage to get to a set of relevant references. An identifier can be a meaningless string of characters - e.g. a UUID - and as long as it's accompanied with context information, you can get to the resource it references. Conversely, if you capture context in the URL itself - meaningful words, dates, authors,... - you're actually providing a breadcrumb trail for visitors - people and robots - to follow, leveraging common heuristics they might use to get to that web resource directly. Might, because discovery is always a process of making educated guesses and following cowpaths to get to the right answer. So, no, making URL's shorter isn't necessarily advantageous. In the same vain: long passwords using commonly, easily to remember words instead of an unintelligible string of 16 characters. Tangentially, I also have ambiguous feelings over the widespread use of URL shorteners. Partly because they act as a middle man providing brittle URL's that can - and will - break in the long run. Partly because they hide a ton of potential context information that might be captured in the original URL. > You can tell someone. You can even say it out loud! Whether answering an email or talking to someone on the phone, I can say, “Go to sive.rs/ff for my talk about the first follower.” or “My newest book is at sive.rs/h.” I do this often, so having memorable URLs saves me a lot of searching. Again, context matters. This might work if you want to highlight specific content - e.g. a marketing page for your book - but it certainly doesn't work all the time for all your content. Is that blogpost from 2007 really that important that you need to be able to "say it out loud" to someone on the phone today at any moment? Short URL's come at a cost. What's the trade off you're making here? > They look nicer. They’re aesthetic. They show care. I don't care. Really. I don't. I care about readability and accessibility. Sure enough, URL's with tons of non-nonsensical query parameters are a blight, but this has more to do with readability then "aesthetics". It's an URL, not poetry. > They remove the middle-man. With long URLs, people use those ugly social share buttons that promote (and further entrench) harmful social media sites, and add visual clutter to your site. Short URLs encourage people to copy and paste the URL directly, which lets them share it anywhere, instead of only the sites for which you have a share button. Or maybe the answer here is to avoid using social share buttons on your website at all? > They’re enough. Using 36 characters (a-z and 0-9): 4-character URLs give you 1,679,616 (36⁴) unique combinations.You don’t need more than that. Well, how about "sive.rs/qxfa" or "sive.rs/kxig" or "sive.rs/ddiz"? It's an argument that's in direct contradiction with the author's first argument. Again, heuristics matter. Readability matters. A big chunk of those 1.6 million odd unique combinations aren't usable of the bat because they are simply unintelligible strings of characters without meaning.
- dgb23 4y agoThe issue I see with this is that it does not allow for genericity. URLs on sites with a ton of content often have a regularity to them. For example you might want to have different types of articles, say rooms, people and towels. For each article type you might want different affordances that usually have overlap, like an index, an input form, an activity feed... URL paths are a good way to encode that kind of regularity. Of course on a blog of a single person it’s whatever. Similar: The variants of „Just write HTML!“ posts that come up every once in a while.
- hrithwikbha 4y agoIsn't remembering certain short domains hard ? I was hearing Instagram influencers say "tap the link" all the time so bought a domain https://tapthe.link https://tapthe.link which creates a url which can take viewers directly to the app via deep linking instead of a simple redirect, super helpful for YouTubers and marketers and it's free for creators. tapthelink is easy to remember than say a short url which says xlps.com or something
- ciroduran 4y agoI really appreciate that Blogspot and Wordpress sort of standardized putting the date in the URL, I appreciate being able to spot dates in blog posts at a glance. Yes, your writing may be timeless (hopefully), but to me being able to know when something was written is important most of the time.
- bjarneh 4y agoIf those hierarchical directories actually work, i.e. http://example.com/blog/2022/05 http://example.com/blog/2022/05 actually lists blog entries written in May 2022, I'd certainly prefer that to this type of "optimization".
- kevincox 4y agoThey do on my site :) (assuming there is at least one post in that period, otherwise 404)
- franze 4y agodon't do that and don't do hierarchical URLs also this are my battle-proven URL rules. whenever i violated them and changed the priority I regretted it. URL-rules URL-Rule 1: unique (1 URL == 1 resource, 1 resource == 1 URL) URL-Rule 2: permanent (they do not change, no dependencies to anything) URL-Rule 3: manageable (equals measurable, 1 logic per site section, no exceptions) URL-Rule 4: easily scalable logic URL-Rule 5: short URL-Rule 6: with a variation (partial) of the targeted phrase URL-Rule 1 is more important than 1 to 6 combined, URL-Rule 2 is more important than 2 to 6 combines, … URL-Rule 5 and 6 are a trade-of. 6 is the least important. the URL yoursite.com/short violated rule number 3. lets say you have list pages, category pages, tag pages, database generated pages, post pages .... now say you change your listpages, in design, in how they look, you want to know if they now work better (for whatever metrik you care about or not), well good luck with that. either you create a regex of hell for GA or whatever tool you are using or just a spreadsheet. or you do example.com/l/short for list pages, example.cm/a/super-short for article pages, now easy to measure and manage. also dont do example.com/category-name/article as all hierarchies are imperfect and change over time (there is no permanent or perfect hierarchy over time) so any kind of hierarchy violates URL rule number 2. use %namespaces%, these are one or two letter words which identify the pagetype (listpage, article page) (note: pagetype defined as "share the same or very similar process on how the page gets created, changing the template or process of the pagetype, changes all pages under this pagetype) i usually end up with https://www.example.com/%pagetype https://www.example.com/%pagetype namespace%/%permanent identifier i have under total control%/ or https://www.example.com/%country https://www.example.com/%country or language namespace%/%pageytpe namespace%/%permanent identifier i have under total control%/ for multimarket and/or multilanguage webproperties you can download my book for free here if you like https://gumroad.com/l/understanding-seo/hacker-news https://gumroad.com/l/understanding-seo/hacker-news I go in a bit more detail there.
- jefftk 4y agoI do think this is a good idea in some situations, but the author doesn't get into the advantages of the style they dislike. Let's look at that path: /blog/2022/05/08/short-urls-why-and-how.html I can tell it's a blog post, I can tell when it was written, and I can see enough of the title that I can remember if I already read it. The ".html" doesn't add anything though. Personally, I find putting the title of the post (but not the date) in the path is a good compromise: /short-urls-why-and-how
- lloydatkinson 4y agoWhen I made my site I opted for posts to have the year like: /posts/2022/modelling-workflows-with-finite-state-machines-in-dotnet/ This way people can still see the approximate date, while also ruling out the small chance in the future I'd want a post with the same title again (can't think of why, but I didn't want to rule out the possibility).
- verelo 4y agoI’m getting old because this reminds me of a time when I built a Url shortener years back. We needed about 30m unique short urls and at the time 3rd parties were expensive and a bit annoying for our use case. The project was successful but a few bumps in the road were encountered ie when we came up with the simple solution of the urls being their autoincrement IDs base…i think we used 40?…encoded we didn’t consider that sometimes the results might be offensive words. These urls were being used for referral links, and sending someone www.shorturl.com/cunt didn’t go down so well. We essentially had to sensor certain integers out to prevent this.
- lapcat 4y ago> You can remember them. Can you? I can remember some domains, but I can't recall many full URLs that I remember, except perhaps some that I use almost daily. Certainly not a blog post that I'll read only once. > You can tell someone. You can even say it out loud! If the other person is going to write down the URL, I'm not sure there's a difference here. Giving someone your email address over the phone is already a painful experience no matter what. Always have to make sure the dots are in the right place. And if the first point is wrong — "You can remember them." — then making it a little shorter over the phone isn't all that advantageous, because they're going to write it down or type it anyway, not memorize it.
- nemz44 4y agoI created a link shortening service that works in exactly this way, it's called pxl.to. Based on Amazon CloudFront's global edge network of 310+ Points of Presence in 47 countries. What this means for the user: - Instant links with low latency no matter where your visitors are in the world - Robust and reliable links that will never go down, ever - Protection against network and application layer attacks - Unlimited tracked clicks (no cap on clicks/month) The service allows the creation of links using a hierarchical naming structure, as mentioned in these comments like example.com/folder/test. It also auto-generates an SSL cert for every custom domain added, for HTTPS-secure links. I'd love any feedback! The service is largely free and can be found at https://www.pxl.to https://www.pxl.to
- wintermutestwin 4y agoI have found one truly valuable use case for shorter URLs: when a link is included in a printed document. The problem is that every URL shortener replaces the domain, which is IMO a highly dangerous thing.
- bombcar 4y agoI have a short enough domain for work that I can just make a simple redirect for short "easy to type" URLs as needed. I prefer things like example.com/cats when possible vs technically shorter but harder to remember things from bit.ly or whatever.
- snowwrestler 4y agoURLs generally do not matter to people. Quick, what’s the URL of this discussion? Will you remember it? Does that have any impact on your usage of HN? The vast, vast majority of website sessions start with a click. When people bother to type things in, they type them into search bars (reminder that in most browsers, the “address bar” is also the search bar). So be clear what you want from your URL structure. If you want search traffic, you’d do better to organize it for Google (hierarchical topic-based) than making it short. If you want to be able to say it or print it for easy typing, a domain name is going to be best. Catch it and redirect it to the target page. Even “domain.com/word” is going to be hard for most people to remember. If they remember it at all, they will probably type in “domain word” and let Google figure it out for them.
- cryptonector 4y ago> URLs generally do not matter to people. Emphasis on generally. URIs do leak into the UI/UX. It's unavoidable. Purists hate it. But it is a fact of reality.
- postalrat 4y agoIf urls don't matter then why bother with domain names?
- donohoe 4y agoI believe this is a rather naive posts on the subject of URLs and honestly wish it never made it to HN front-page, but seeing as we are here... lets go through the points made and how they conflict with each other... "You can remember them" Well, no. You might remember a few. But you are only going to remember so much. This has a very limited benefit. "You can tell someone" Yeah, but no. I barely tell people a domain. I'll just send them a link on the spot. Again, very limited benefit. "They look nicer." Ok, but not a strong use-case. In general usage the display name of a link does not need to reflect the URL of the link. "They remove the middle-man" ... "encourage people to copy and paste" ... I'm just gonna say this is plain false as a generalization. I've worked on URL sharing in publishing for almost 2 decades (yikes). It's built on a little bit of truth. On mobile devices all have built in share functions to text and spread based on various apps installed. Again, very limited impact and effect. "They’re enough." This is my favorite! He talks about unique combinations but this goes against his original point of making them memorable. He should of at least talked about potential dictionary level word combinations... sigh
- cryptonector 4y agoURIs are not supposed to be part of the UI/UX, but they unavoidably have leaked and will continue to leak into it. Therefore, making those URIs most likely to leak into the UI/UX be user-friendly is very good advice.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago> URIs are not supposed to be part of the UI/UX Why not? > but they unavoidably have leaked and will continue to leak into it It seems like the opposite has happened. URIs were the default navigation UX, but we are slowly pushing them away.
- cryptonector 4y ago> Why not? Because if you have enough of them for internal purposes then they can't have meaning to users. > It seems like the opposite has happened. URIs were the default navigation UX, but we are slowly pushing them away. URIs were the default entry point for navigation, and they still are. That's one way in which they leak, but these are intentional so maybe best not called "leaks". There's also the URIs that leak in other ways, like in the browser status bar, and so on.
- _def 4y agoI like this and I'm unreasonably happy that once I built a tiny website to share my music, where you get a bunch of listening options when visiting `example.com/listen/songname` :) another cool example would be this guys blog (look at the URL): https://there.oughta.be/a/wifi-game-boy-cartridge https://there.oughta.be/a/wifi-game-boy-cartridge
- sgdhsfdh 4y ago[dead]