8 ms·

This may be the reason I stop using Chrome even though I was a member of the team for 5 years. I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I need to copy and paste URLs. It was alrea

This may be the reason I stop using Chrome even though I was a member of the team for 5 years. I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I need to copy and paste URLs. It was already annoying enough with it's removing of the protocol because sometimes I make a typo, try to edit it and it messes up and removes the protocol forcing me to edit it a 3rd time only after it goes as searches for something. Even as just a user I copy and paste URLs all day long. Into FB, into Twitter, into stackoverflow answers, into HN responses. I don't even see how this is better for Google. Links make up pagerank no? Links are what Google uses to be the best search engine. How is making it harder for people to copy and paste URLs good for Google? I'm sure I'm in the minority as a semi-webdev but dammit, don't fix what isn't broken. Or at least give those of us with different use cases a way to get shit done without getting in our way. Sure, this may or may not be better for my grandma but it's not for me. I causes me frustration daily already. This is only going to make it anger inducing.

frozenport 13y ago
Also gramma is gonna be sad when I give her a URL and she won't know where it goes. It is not clear if they are dumbing the web down for users or just to get people onto Google search.
- bagels 13y ago
  There's already a usability problem with the address bar: Many people use it to search google instead of entering urls.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    I've never understood the claim that the omnibar was a usability problem. It's really only a problem if you have an ideological issue with preferring to search Google... which isn't a usability issue.
    - bagels 13y ago
      It is confusing because there are these other things (urls) you could put in to the address bar that cause something different to happen from searching google.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Not so much a usability problem but a climate change nightmare. All of those people entering partial URLs in the omnibox, causing a Google search, releasing CO2 is terrible when they could be using local bookmarks.
      - insky 13y ago
        Good point. I wondered why this didn't happen under my Chrome, but I have a different search engine and have unchecked the box under Settings->Advanced->Privacy. I'm not sure what gets sent with regards to spelling helpers? That could almost be like a keylogger? I wonder how it works. I've turned that off also.
  - busterarm 13y ago
    Yeah but at least if you can get them to that bar or at least "Open Location" you can semi-predictably get them to a website where you can get the problem solved or narrowed down. Once you obscure URLs, web browsers become _impossible to support_. Of course Google doesn't care, because support isn't part of their lexicon.
    - ajanuary 13y ago
      You can still type URLs into the bar. It's easier to direct them to it because it always has the same prompt text. "Do you see a box that says 'Search Google or type URL?'? Great, type this into it..." The thing that's harder is getting them to read the url back to you.
      - busterarm 13y ago
        That's my point. You can't get them to verify where they're at, because you tell them to go to X and they can't confirm they're at X. Unsupportable.
- ajanuary 13y ago
  She'll put it in the bit that says "Search Google or type URL". It is in fact clearer now, because instead of having an old url in there, it can have a consistent prompt of "URL goes here". If she doesn't know what a URL is, it's now easier to describe the input box to her.
- Kiro 13y ago
  Many people don't know where to put the URL anyway. They type it on Google. You would be surprised how many search queries start with "http".
0h139 13y ago
I agree, but for the time being you can still click on the actual button, which will let you view/edit the entire URL.
- greggman 13y ago
  Actually that 'might' be ok. I'd have to try it. On the other hand seeing the URL helps me decide if I'm on the correct webpage. mybank.com vs pretendingtobemybank.com Of course I try not to click those links in the first place but I do look at the URL to check that some link I clicked took me to the right place. There's also plenty of apps I use where the URL is useful info. For example JSFiddle. If there's a /N in the URL I know I need to click "Set As Base" before I'm done. Of course if that's the only site I need that on maybe not a good argument. I'll have to think about if that comes up on other sites for me or not. That's also a dev only issue probably. I wouldn't mind having 2 modes, user mode and dev mode. I can certainly accept that non-devs have different needs than devs. My only point is I'm trying to avoid frustration. I have enough that in my life. I don't want chrome to pile on more and I can see that their current URL bar already causes me frustration often while doing dev and even while just socializing on the net. At some point that frustration will lead me to find something less frustrating.
  - anu_gupta 13y ago
    In the case of spoof/phishing sites, having the base domain be shown as it is in Canary might actually be helpful - instead of a long complicated URL that allows the scammer to camouflage their fake domain, the domain will be explicitly called out. I don't hate this change so far (especially as clicking on the domain gives the full URL - although that's perhaps not very discoverable if you don't know about it already)
saraid216 13y ago
How much of this would feel addressed if a button was added to copy the URL to clipboard? Obviously, it would not fix things like being able to manipulate the URL in the field (/page2 to /page3) or get rid of utm_source cruft, so it would still be a net loss. But would you consider that a tolerable loss, or still too much? (I think I'd say it's still too much, but I am also a web dev and thus a power user.)
deanclatworthy 13y ago
You can disable it by going to chrome://flags/#origin-chip-in-omnibox, change it to Disabled and restart chrome. Edit: Apparently a useful comment offering a solution to the parent's comment is not HN worthy?
- greggman 13y ago
  Chrome tries to get rid of flags so likely they'll remove that option in a year or two if they decide no URL is FTW.
- edanm 13y ago
  You shouldn't be downvoted, but please don't talk about being downvoted - it's against the site guidelines, mostly because it makes for boring conversations. Thanks!
  - lotsofcows 13y ago
    Not half as boring as not writing anything. Also, not half as boring as pointless answers. Division by 0 err#!07wwfxy6
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Suggesting a 'solution' for something that only shows up on the canary build with a flag is missing the point. This is about defaults and the path forward. Your comment didn't deserve a downvote but please don't assume it to be objectively useful.
- TheLoneWolfling 13y ago
  Most of the time when something is changed with the previous behavior retained as a flag, sooner or later the flag will be removed. The default behavior is generally indicative of how the devs want things to be used. So no, not an actual solution. A temporary one, yes, but not longterm.
cyberneticcook 13y ago
I copy and paste URLs all day long too. I use CMD+L to select the whole URL and CMD+C to copy it. No big deal.
- insky 13y ago
  Great for you with your 'keyboard', perhaps not so good for other input devices. I do actually have an irritation, when I'm in Chrome and I do a CTRL+L and CTRL+C, and then I go to paste what I think I've copied, actually I have an unexpected http:// http:// at the front of what I've copied. Sure that's what most people want, but it isn't what you see is what you get.
drgath 13y ago
> I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I'm using Canary with this option enabled, and all you have to do is click the domain box, then you can freely view, edit, and copy the URL. All this update does is hide the path portion of the URL. That's it, so IMO, this story is way overblown. Google isn't removing the URL bar, they're just acknowledging the fact that 99% of users don't need to see 99% of the URLs they visit on a daily basis. Why do Hacker News readers need to see a URL that looks like this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7677031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7677031 Why do users looking at Amazon Fire's landing page need to see this? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CX5P8FC/ref=amb_link_412650922_2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-csm-1&pf_rd_r=0DAD51W7AATA6WG081BY&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1786695002&pf_rd_i=507846 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CX5P8FC/ref=amb_link_412... Why do EBay shoppers need to see this? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garmin-nuvi-2555LMT-5-GPS-Navigation-System-with-Lifetime-Map-Traffic-Updates/310943209506?pt=GPS_Devices&hash=item4865a8d822 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garmin-nuvi-2555LMT-5-GPS-Navigation... They don't. Just trim it down to the domain and call it good. Oh, and it's worth mentioning that to copy/paste URLs, it's still only one click away, because when you click the box, it auto-selects the entire URL. Edit: As I review my post, in the context of this story I find it humorous that even Hacker News trims the URLs I pasted because of how obnoxious and unnecessary they are.
- rismay 13y ago
  The only problem I see with this is the confusion between the search box and urls for most users. I noticed my 10 year old brother trying to find a song the other day in a peculiar fashion. He simply typed in youtube and "genre name." He click on the 2nd link of the search results. Then clicking on the 3rd item of a side bar linking to a playlist. He was navigating the web through links provided by google like we use the directory system. In this case, knowing the specific url would be mind numbing and utterly useless. However, the distinction between google and the web is just too blurred for so many people. However, I think drgath's point is ultimately correct. For some people, there really is no internet besides Facebook. For some no internet without Google. Even crazier: I've met someone who does not know the internet without Siri. If we hold onto things like the directory structure, then we couldn't have "advancements" in user interface design like iOS. Could we eventually get a web without urls like iOS is an operating system without a visible directory structure to end users? I think it would be a big win. The directory structure was replaced by single purposed apps. What will url's be replaced by?
userbinator 13y ago
stop using Chrome That may solve this particular problem, but then which browser do you use instead? Firefox has had its history of similar changes (although you can still use extensions), Opera post-12 lost a ton of customisability, and IE, although appearing to have the fewest irritating interface changes, also has the most rendering quirks. (Personally I'm less concerned with the rendering quirks than the UI changes, so I tend to use IE most of the time, but I use various versions of all four on different sites - at the moment I have Firefox and Opera open as well.) In my mind, they're all headed down the same path, just at slightly different rates. The idea that you can choose a different browser is starting to become more and more of an illusion.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  I'm smelling a possible reboot of the browser paradigm. There are a few fundamental uses I see, and they're somewhat distinct: • Reading. For which stripping 99.99966% of Web formatting would be preferred. If I got content-heavy sites in a form similar to what Readability, Pocket, Instapaper, etc., delivers, I'd be much happier. Well, slightly less grumpy. I found it interesting that the Kobo tablet was, for a while, advertising its browser as doing just that (from what I can tell of the revised copy, they're offering built-in Pocket). See: http://www.kobobooks.com/tablets http://www.kobobooks.com/tablets Online forums are another special case. • Commerce. Here authentication and payment are concerns. Neither are built in to existing HTML standards. • Applications. Something that's more than just putting words (and images) on a page, or buying stuff. For this I'm actually inclined to think that the Mobile app model might be more appropriate. Say I want ... an email tool, or an interactive mapping tool, or a host monitoring solution, etc. Running this in a separate process space, in a separate windowing context, individually controllable, etc., would be a huge win. The other element is user state: there are very few cases where I need a specific browser page running at all times (selected apps are the exception). What I do want is to be able to return to the page state I'd last left it at. With very aggressive paging out of state to local storage, and/or simply leaving a marker of "this is where you were at", and being able to recall it as needed, overall performance would vastly improve. Neither Firefox nor Chrome presently offers this. On Firefox, there's a single process space, such that all tabs become unresponsive when system resources are exhausted. On Chrome, there are multiple subprocesses, which are individually much heavier-weight than Firefox's own tabs, but which can be individually killed. You have to reference them indirectly, however, through a task manager, rather than being able to simply kill the tab you're on at the moment (you can close it, you cannot kill it). In both cases I'm finding myself constantly manually managing resources. I've also found myself abandoning Firefox for Chrome as with the former I've got to kill/restart the whole thing, while Chrome gives more granular control, and Chrome tends to crowd out FF for resources. Both are very far from optimal.
ohwp 13y ago
As a developer I need to SEE the url as well. A lot of time I need to check get params. Also when hovering a link I need to see the full url in the status bar.

frozenport 13y ago

Also gramma is gonna be sad when I give her a URL and she won't know where it goes. It is not clear if they are dumbing the web down for users or just to get people onto Google search.

bagels 13y ago
There's already a usability problem with the address bar: Many people use it to search google instead of entering urls.
- saraid216 13y ago
  I've never understood the claim that the omnibar was a usability problem. It's really only a problem if you have an ideological issue with preferring to search Google... which isn't a usability issue.
  - bagels 13y ago
    It is confusing because there are these other things (urls) you could put in to the address bar that cause something different to happen from searching google.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Not so much a usability problem but a climate change nightmare. All of those people entering partial URLs in the omnibox, causing a Google search, releasing CO2 is terrible when they could be using local bookmarks.
    - insky 13y ago
      Good point. I wondered why this didn't happen under my Chrome, but I have a different search engine and have unchecked the box under Settings->Advanced->Privacy. I'm not sure what gets sent with regards to spelling helpers? That could almost be like a keylogger? I wonder how it works. I've turned that off also.
- busterarm 13y ago
  Yeah but at least if you can get them to that bar or at least "Open Location" you can semi-predictably get them to a website where you can get the problem solved or narrowed down. Once you obscure URLs, web browsers become _impossible to support_. Of course Google doesn't care, because support isn't part of their lexicon.
  - ajanuary 13y ago
    You can still type URLs into the bar. It's easier to direct them to it because it always has the same prompt text. "Do you see a box that says 'Search Google or type URL?'? Great, type this into it..." The thing that's harder is getting them to read the url back to you.
    - busterarm 13y ago
      That's my point. You can't get them to verify where they're at, because you tell them to go to X and they can't confirm they're at X. Unsupportable.
ajanuary 13y ago
She'll put it in the bit that says "Search Google or type URL". It is in fact clearer now, because instead of having an old url in there, it can have a consistent prompt of "URL goes here". If she doesn't know what a URL is, it's now easier to describe the input box to her.
Kiro 13y ago
Many people don't know where to put the URL anyway. They type it on Google. You would be surprised how many search queries start with "http".

0h139 13y ago

I agree, but for the time being you can still click on the actual button, which will let you view/edit the entire URL.

greggman 13y ago
Actually that 'might' be ok. I'd have to try it. On the other hand seeing the URL helps me decide if I'm on the correct webpage. mybank.com vs pretendingtobemybank.com Of course I try not to click those links in the first place but I do look at the URL to check that some link I clicked took me to the right place. There's also plenty of apps I use where the URL is useful info. For example JSFiddle. If there's a /N in the URL I know I need to click "Set As Base" before I'm done. Of course if that's the only site I need that on maybe not a good argument. I'll have to think about if that comes up on other sites for me or not. That's also a dev only issue probably. I wouldn't mind having 2 modes, user mode and dev mode. I can certainly accept that non-devs have different needs than devs. My only point is I'm trying to avoid frustration. I have enough that in my life. I don't want chrome to pile on more and I can see that their current URL bar already causes me frustration often while doing dev and even while just socializing on the net. At some point that frustration will lead me to find something less frustrating.
- anu_gupta 13y ago
  In the case of spoof/phishing sites, having the base domain be shown as it is in Canary might actually be helpful - instead of a long complicated URL that allows the scammer to camouflage their fake domain, the domain will be explicitly called out. I don't hate this change so far (especially as clicking on the domain gives the full URL - although that's perhaps not very discoverable if you don't know about it already)

saraid216 13y ago

How much of this would feel addressed if a button was added to copy the URL to clipboard? Obviously, it would not fix things like being able to manipulate the URL in the field (/page2 to /page3) or get rid of utm_source cruft, so it would still be a net loss. But would you consider that a tolerable loss, or still too much? (I think I'd say it's still too much, but I am also a web dev and thus a power user.)

deanclatworthy 13y ago

You can disable it by going to chrome://flags/#origin-chip-in-omnibox, change it to Disabled and restart chrome. Edit: Apparently a useful comment offering a solution to the parent's comment is not HN worthy?

greggman 13y ago
Chrome tries to get rid of flags so likely they'll remove that option in a year or two if they decide no URL is FTW.
edanm 13y ago
You shouldn't be downvoted, but please don't talk about being downvoted - it's against the site guidelines, mostly because it makes for boring conversations. Thanks!
- lotsofcows 13y ago
  Not half as boring as not writing anything. Also, not half as boring as pointless answers. Division by 0 err#!07wwfxy6
Dylan16807 13y ago
Suggesting a 'solution' for something that only shows up on the canary build with a flag is missing the point. This is about defaults and the path forward. Your comment didn't deserve a downvote but please don't assume it to be objectively useful.
TheLoneWolfling 13y ago
Most of the time when something is changed with the previous behavior retained as a flag, sooner or later the flag will be removed. The default behavior is generally indicative of how the devs want things to be used. So no, not an actual solution. A temporary one, yes, but not longterm.

cyberneticcook 13y ago

I copy and paste URLs all day long too. I use CMD+L to select the whole URL and CMD+C to copy it. No big deal.

insky 13y ago
Great for you with your 'keyboard', perhaps not so good for other input devices. I do actually have an irritation, when I'm in Chrome and I do a CTRL+L and CTRL+C, and then I go to paste what I think I've copied, actually I have an unexpected http:// http:// at the front of what I've copied. Sure that's what most people want, but it isn't what you see is what you get.

drgath 13y ago

> I NEED TO EDIT URLs. I'm using Canary with this option enabled, and all you have to do is click the domain box, then you can freely view, edit, and copy the URL. All this update does is hide the path portion of the URL. That's it, so IMO, this story is way overblown. Google isn't removing the URL bar, they're just acknowledging the fact that 99% of users don't need to see 99% of the URLs they visit on a daily basis. Why do Hacker News readers need to see a URL that looks like this? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7677031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7677031 Why do users looking at Amazon Fire's landing page need to see this? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CX5P8FC/ref=amb_link_412650922_2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-csm-1&pf_rd_r=0DAD51W7AATA6WG081BY&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1786695002&pf_rd_i=507846 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CX5P8FC/ref=amb_link_412... Why do EBay shoppers need to see this? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garmin-nuvi-2555LMT-5-GPS-Navigation-System-with-Lifetime-Map-Traffic-Updates/310943209506?pt=GPS_Devices&hash=item4865a8d822 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Garmin-nuvi-2555LMT-5-GPS-Navigation... They don't. Just trim it down to the domain and call it good. Oh, and it's worth mentioning that to copy/paste URLs, it's still only one click away, because when you click the box, it auto-selects the entire URL. Edit: As I review my post, in the context of this story I find it humorous that even Hacker News trims the URLs I pasted because of how obnoxious and unnecessary they are.

rismay 13y ago
The only problem I see with this is the confusion between the search box and urls for most users. I noticed my 10 year old brother trying to find a song the other day in a peculiar fashion. He simply typed in youtube and "genre name." He click on the 2nd link of the search results. Then clicking on the 3rd item of a side bar linking to a playlist. He was navigating the web through links provided by google like we use the directory system. In this case, knowing the specific url would be mind numbing and utterly useless. However, the distinction between google and the web is just too blurred for so many people. However, I think drgath's point is ultimately correct. For some people, there really is no internet besides Facebook. For some no internet without Google. Even crazier: I've met someone who does not know the internet without Siri. If we hold onto things like the directory structure, then we couldn't have "advancements" in user interface design like iOS. Could we eventually get a web without urls like iOS is an operating system without a visible directory structure to end users? I think it would be a big win. The directory structure was replaced by single purposed apps. What will url's be replaced by?

userbinator 13y ago

stop using Chrome That may solve this particular problem, but then which browser do you use instead? Firefox has had its history of similar changes (although you can still use extensions), Opera post-12 lost a ton of customisability, and IE, although appearing to have the fewest irritating interface changes, also has the most rendering quirks. (Personally I'm less concerned with the rendering quirks than the UI changes, so I tend to use IE most of the time, but I use various versions of all four on different sites - at the moment I have Firefox and Opera open as well.) In my mind, they're all headed down the same path, just at slightly different rates. The idea that you can choose a different browser is starting to become more and more of an illusion.

dredmorbius 13y ago
I'm smelling a possible reboot of the browser paradigm. There are a few fundamental uses I see, and they're somewhat distinct: • Reading. For which stripping 99.99966% of Web formatting would be preferred. If I got content-heavy sites in a form similar to what Readability, Pocket, Instapaper, etc., delivers, I'd be much happier. Well, slightly less grumpy. I found it interesting that the Kobo tablet was, for a while, advertising its browser as doing just that (from what I can tell of the revised copy, they're offering built-in Pocket). See: http://www.kobobooks.com/tablets http://www.kobobooks.com/tablets Online forums are another special case. • Commerce. Here authentication and payment are concerns. Neither are built in to existing HTML standards. • Applications. Something that's more than just putting words (and images) on a page, or buying stuff. For this I'm actually inclined to think that the Mobile app model might be more appropriate. Say I want ... an email tool, or an interactive mapping tool, or a host monitoring solution, etc. Running this in a separate process space, in a separate windowing context, individually controllable, etc., would be a huge win. The other element is user state: there are very few cases where I need a specific browser page running at all times (selected apps are the exception). What I do want is to be able to return to the page state I'd last left it at. With very aggressive paging out of state to local storage, and/or simply leaving a marker of "this is where you were at", and being able to recall it as needed, overall performance would vastly improve. Neither Firefox nor Chrome presently offers this. On Firefox, there's a single process space, such that all tabs become unresponsive when system resources are exhausted. On Chrome, there are multiple subprocesses, which are individually much heavier-weight than Firefox's own tabs, but which can be individually killed. You have to reference them indirectly, however, through a task manager, rather than being able to simply kill the tab you're on at the moment (you can close it, you cannot kill it). In both cases I'm finding myself constantly manually managing resources. I've also found myself abandoning Firefox for Chrome as with the former I've got to kill/restart the whole thing, while Chrome gives more granular control, and Chrome tends to crowd out FF for resources. Both are very far from optimal.

ohwp 13y ago

As a developer I need to SEE the url as well. A lot of time I need to check get params. Also when hovering a link I need to see the full url in the status bar.