5 ms·

> Not everybody, not even most people, want to understand "how to web works", "how urls work" or anything else along those lines. There are also a surprising n

by pdkl95 13y ago

> Not everybody, not even most people, want to understand "how to web works", "how urls work" or anything else along those lines. There are also a surprising number of people that don't want to be literate. In the modern world, we have generally regarded such views as wrong. Basic literacy is such an important skill to have, we have even created various mandates to provide the necessary education to all children. Technology has simply added a handful of additional details. Nobody is suggesting that every has to learn all the subtleties of URLs or read RFC 1738. Much like tuning the engine in a car, these are technical details safely left to experts. Anybody who wishes to participate in this new, technology-filled world (i.e. ~"everybody") will need to make a few minor additions to their skill-set[1]. One of these is to know what a URL is, in concept, and be able to differentiate between the host-part and the path-part. Being able to parse the path/query-string is not necessary. The necessary skill is being able to recognize that "example.com/foo/bar/baz" is more specific than "example.com", or being able to guess that "example.com/2014/04/18/the-great-quux" is probably a specific article posted last month. This skill is important to have to participate in the modern world, not just to use a "web browser". You see URLs everywhere. Many print ads now have a URL in them, for example. This is the new literacy, de facto. [1] Other skills might include understanding that text shaped similar to "foo@example.com" is probably an email address, how to use a mouse, and what terms such as "password" or "login" mean.

smsm42 13y ago
It's not literacy, it's more like knowing car's engine error codes. Arcane knowledge which is very useful if you're mechanic but would be mostly useless trivia for anybody else. Guessing "example.com/2014/04/18/the-great-quux" is a date-based URL is a nice parlor trick but most sites don't even have this URL scheme or any URL scheme at all. Next to none of the phishing-relevant sites does. No print ad would have URL of any complexity - if it would have anything beyond domain name it'd be a single keyword.
- StuffMaster 13y ago
  I would liken more to like the readouts of the car. Say we hide the fuel gauge behind a menu and replace it with a "need gas" symbol. A clueless user might say "I don't want to learn how the fuel gauge or recirculating air button work. I just want to know if I need gas right now." But knowing how to plan your trips/stops is important, as is knowing where your air is coming from.
edanm 13y ago
That's a really great point, thank you. My only possible objection is to observe that clearly some things are important/necessary to teach, others aren't, and all we're arguing about is which of these URL's fall into. Nobody here is (currently) arguing against such basic things as login's and passwords, or that "foo@example.com" should obviously to everyone be an email. The reason I think URL's are over the line is because everything after the domain name is usually an implementation detail. Some sites will have "id=234234234", some sites will have complicated paths, some sites will have nice, readable URL's, and a large part of the difference is the specific framework or approach that the Web Devs decided to use. Do you really think it's important for people to understand the decisions behind this? That's over the line IMO. Also, another knock against URL's being required is that, de facto, people don't understand URL's and seem to use the web just fine. That's because us selfless developers have been working hard to abstract away the issue from users. I think most users don't understand URL's, and this doesn't bother them in the least until you get to issues like phishing attacks. So all Chrome would be doing is recognizing an existing situation, and helping make it better. Lastly, I'd like to point out that even the easy examples you mention, e.g. passwords, are something that most users don't really understand, and for exactly that reason, developers have been trying to get rid of passwords for many years. And IMO, one of the big benefits of Facebook is that it makes the "send a message to someone" game much easier than email for real users, so that's a knock against email. I really don't think that understanding URL's is akin to being basically literate. I think the bar is much lower, and that we as developers forget just how much specialized knowledge we already know, and how much the average user already has in order to use a computer these days. That said, it's a great analogy so thanks for bringing it up!
- userbinator 13y ago
  > de facto, people don't understand URL's Here is evidence that shows a lot of "average users" do have some understanding of what URLs are, and even if not the technical details, then at least the concept (which is definitely more important than the details): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7678729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7678729
daffodil2 13y ago
Just as it would be unreasonable to require that anyone who drives a car roughly understands how an engine works, it would be similarly unreasonable to require that anyone who uses the internet roughly understands how addressing works. It is of course true that your car ownership experience will be greatly enriched by understanding roughly how an engine works, and that your internet experience will be greatly enriched by understanding how addressing works. But neither should be a prerequisite. You underestimate how subtle the concepts underlying addressing are, probably because, like many technical people, you have understood how URLs work for so long that you can no longer remember what it is like to not understand them.
- teacup50 13y ago
  There's a rich irony in your avoidance of the most obvious car analogy possible: between internet addressing and street addressing. Understanding URLs is in no way similar to even a rudimentary understanding how an internal combustion engine works. What it's most similar is understanding how we address and route physical destinations so that you can get there in your car.
  - edanm 13y ago
    As I said in another comment: Try and explain to the average user why URLs on HN look like this: news.ycombinator.com/?id=123123 Whereas on CNN they look like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/04/world/africa/nigeria-abducted-girls/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/04/world/africa/nigeria-abduc... Whereas on another news site (Israeli) they look like this: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4516118,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4516118,00.html Whereas on Reddit they look like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/24p3tm/japanese_photographer_takes_cutest_pictures_of/ http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/24p3tm/japanese_photog... Each one of these is a completely different implementation detail which the average user doesn't care about and, honestly, won't necessarily understand without understanding the underlying technology behind these sites. Remember: Most users barely understand, if at all, what a browser is! And if you want to see a comparable challenge, try to explain to someone just one thing - why do some sites have www vs. not. The parent's sentence was really great: "You underestimate how subtle the concepts underlying addressing are, probably because, like many technical people, you have understood how URLs work for so long that you can no longer remember what it is like to not understand them."

by pdkl95 13y ago

smsm42 13y ago

It's not literacy, it's more like knowing car's engine error codes. Arcane knowledge which is very useful if you're mechanic but would be mostly useless trivia for anybody else. Guessing "example.com/2014/04/18/the-great-quux" is a date-based URL is a nice parlor trick but most sites don't even have this URL scheme or any URL scheme at all. Next to none of the phishing-relevant sites does. No print ad would have URL of any complexity - if it would have anything beyond domain name it'd be a single keyword.

StuffMaster 13y ago
I would liken more to like the readouts of the car. Say we hide the fuel gauge behind a menu and replace it with a "need gas" symbol. A clueless user might say "I don't want to learn how the fuel gauge or recirculating air button work. I just want to know if I need gas right now." But knowing how to plan your trips/stops is important, as is knowing where your air is coming from.

edanm 13y ago

That's a really great point, thank you. My only possible objection is to observe that clearly some things are important/necessary to teach, others aren't, and all we're arguing about is which of these URL's fall into. Nobody here is (currently) arguing against such basic things as login's and passwords, or that "foo@example.com" should obviously to everyone be an email. The reason I think URL's are over the line is because everything after the domain name is usually an implementation detail. Some sites will have "id=234234234", some sites will have complicated paths, some sites will have nice, readable URL's, and a large part of the difference is the specific framework or approach that the Web Devs decided to use. Do you really think it's important for people to understand the decisions behind this? That's over the line IMO. Also, another knock against URL's being required is that, de facto, people don't understand URL's and seem to use the web just fine. That's because us selfless developers have been working hard to abstract away the issue from users. I think most users don't understand URL's, and this doesn't bother them in the least until you get to issues like phishing attacks. So all Chrome would be doing is recognizing an existing situation, and helping make it better. Lastly, I'd like to point out that even the easy examples you mention, e.g. passwords, are something that most users don't really understand, and for exactly that reason, developers have been trying to get rid of passwords for many years. And IMO, one of the big benefits of Facebook is that it makes the "send a message to someone" game much easier than email for real users, so that's a knock against email. I really don't think that understanding URL's is akin to being basically literate. I think the bar is much lower, and that we as developers forget just how much specialized knowledge we already know, and how much the average user already has in order to use a computer these days. That said, it's a great analogy so thanks for bringing it up!

userbinator 13y ago
> de facto, people don't understand URL's Here is evidence that shows a lot of "average users" do have some understanding of what URLs are, and even if not the technical details, then at least the concept (which is definitely more important than the details): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7678729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7678729

daffodil2 13y ago

Just as it would be unreasonable to require that anyone who drives a car roughly understands how an engine works, it would be similarly unreasonable to require that anyone who uses the internet roughly understands how addressing works. It is of course true that your car ownership experience will be greatly enriched by understanding roughly how an engine works, and that your internet experience will be greatly enriched by understanding how addressing works. But neither should be a prerequisite. You underestimate how subtle the concepts underlying addressing are, probably because, like many technical people, you have understood how URLs work for so long that you can no longer remember what it is like to not understand them.

teacup50 13y ago
There's a rich irony in your avoidance of the most obvious car analogy possible: between internet addressing and street addressing. Understanding URLs is in no way similar to even a rudimentary understanding how an internal combustion engine works. What it's most similar is understanding how we address and route physical destinations so that you can get there in your car.
- edanm 13y ago
  As I said in another comment: Try and explain to the average user why URLs on HN look like this: news.ycombinator.com/?id=123123 Whereas on CNN they look like this: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/04/world/africa/nigeria-abducted-girls/index.html?hpt=hp_c1 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/04/world/africa/nigeria-abduc... Whereas on another news site (Israeli) they look like this: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4516118,00.html http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4516118,00.html Whereas on Reddit they look like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/24p3tm/japanese_photographer_takes_cutest_pictures_of/ http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/24p3tm/japanese_photog... Each one of these is a completely different implementation detail which the average user doesn't care about and, honestly, won't necessarily understand without understanding the underlying technology behind these sites. Remember: Most users barely understand, if at all, what a browser is! And if you want to see a comparable challenge, try to explain to someone just one thing - why do some sites have www vs. not. The parent's sentence was really great: "You underestimate how subtle the concepts underlying addressing are, probably because, like many technical people, you have understood how URLs work for so long that you can no longer remember what it is like to not understand them."