4 ms·
I think it's very important to have a "speaking" URL. That is: I do not recommend to store a serialized, non-human-readable state in the URL. This could lead to
by ktpsns 4y ago
I think it's very important to have a "speaking" URL. That is: I do not recommend to store a serialized, non-human-readable state in the URL. This could lead to the impression that the link can safely be shared because it is not visible what kind of offensive information the state may contain (such as some sensitive search query history).
Having the state stored in speaking URLs in a transparent manner allows advanced users to easily strip information they don't want to share.
- kalium-xyz 4y agoI agree however very few users even see or read the URL.
- cdmckay 4y agoThey do when it’s shared them as a link
- bryanrasmussen 4y agodo you have studies showing this? I think WE do when it's shared as a link, but I think most users get a message - here is that link: long blue text starting with https: for them to click on. And they click on the blue text but do not read.
- hnlmorg 4y agoNot always no. smartphone software often abstract away that process. Plus even in those instances where links are manually copied and pasted, you're still overestimating the competency of the average user to identify the risk of state in URLs even when it seems bloody obvious to us technical folk.
- HPsquared 4y agoIt's a question of security and privacy: what matters is what can be read from the URL.
- majewsky 4y agoIf you deal with tech-illiterate users by putting everything in black boxes, you're contributing to perpetuating tech illiteracy.
- mro_name 4y ago"Building for Users: Designing URLs", Aaron Swartz in "A Programmable Web" (2013) https://doi.org/10.2200/S00481ED1V01Y201302WBE005 https://doi.org/10.2200/S00481ED1V01Y201302WBE005 badly neglected but the more recommended read.