3 ms·
(This has now been removed, according to an update by the author.) The fundamental idea isn't all that bad. But look, even in the 300px image you still have r
by logicallee 13y ago
(This has now been removed, according to an update by the author.)
The fundamental idea isn't all that bad. But look, even in the 300px image you still have room to show more:
http://i1.wp.com/garybacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Screen-Shot-2014-04-30-at-10.17.21-AM.png?resize=300%2C109 http://i1.wp.com/garybacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sc...
le.
So while I know I want to enter a new URL or search about 20x as often as I want to edit or copy the current URL, and, therefore, I am fine with needing to click somewhere else to "view or edit" the URL (default being that the search becomes blanked) - on the other hand, no reason I shouldn't glance a the full URL by default.
So I suggest that you show the URL in light grey and clicking makes the field clear, but berhaps the domain name could be darker, and clicking that part will meke the whole field editable/copyable etc.
It's a subtle difference but it could work.
I'm certainly glad they reverted.
- leoc 13y agoIf you want to see something useful in that empty space, the obvious thing to put there is the page title. (And you don't need to show the URL text at all to make it copyable.) User-visible URLs are a Bad Idea in general https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7679423 . If you badly want to have the tree-structured site guide that people abuse path segments for, that can happily be implemented in some other way and displayed in the same space too.