Agree. Slashes typically mean a directory separator but they're really a character like any other. Having separate pages at /foo and /foo/ is completely legitimate.
Sometimes it seems like we're desperate for innovation. Someone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"?
Not at all. One's a document and the other is an index list unless the list is replaced by a default document.
Also, leaving off the slash to an index will usually cause the web server to do a redirect to to corrected URL with a slash, causing your user extra latency and your server extra hits.
Someone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"?
1) Normal users do not understand URLs, at all.
2) It is in Google's direct financial interest to extend overwhelming control of navigation on the Internet into complete domination, by discouraging navigation by end users and teaching them that the right way to navigate is to use AOL Keywords 2.0 at their friendly local multinational advertising company.
Why would Firefox do this? I don't know. Maybe they have Chrome envy.
Want a conspiracy theory? Firefox receives essentially 100% of their funding -- to the tune of over a hundred million bucks -- from Google kicking back advertising revenue in return for being the default search engine in FF. If a for-profit corporation made a decision in the interests of their sole client whose happiness was worth 9 figures a year, what would you conclude about the motivation for that decision?
I think it's pretty much just the first reason you list. Firefox has been trying to move in this direction since the introduction of the horribly named AwesomeBar, which was intended to be a DWIM button for Web navigation.
The conspiracy theory doesn't really hold up, since as far as I can tell, pleasing Google doesn't affect Mozilla's bottom line either way. The value of Google's happiness to Mozilla is substantially less than $9 million per year. The important metric isn't happiness — it's the binary "Have we avoided pissing Google off so badly that they're willing call off the deal and give up all those Firefox ad clicks to Bing?"
To go beyond the call of duty and actually try to make Google happy by making Firefox worse would be a stupid move — it would only weaken Mozilla's bargaining position with Google.
I agree with that but you can't contradict the underlying technology to make it easier for users to understand. That's just being lazy (in line with your other statements of Chrome envy, etc).
Seems like patchwork to me. If users don't understand URLs then come up with a better way of explaining resources on the Internet to them.
... they're only dropping the trailing slash if it corresponds to the root path. i.e. "www.google.com/" will become "www.google.com", but "www.google.com/webmasters/" will be untouched.
"The basic purpose of hiding the common prefix, http://, is to make URLs more visible. This will also help users to easily identify the website they are dealing with. Although, the URL prefix for encrypted pages (https://) will be displayed as usual to avoid confusion."
How is showing the prefix in one case and not the other avoiding confusion?
If they want to get rid of it, they should get rid of it fully, like the others, and use a recognizable icon for the modes, but not show it and hid it depending on the case. That's the base of confusion, no?
Ok, but why would you have to see https, then? Wouldn't a lock icon be enough?
If the idea is to drop the prefix because it's redundant and useless to most, then it's same for https. All what matters to the end user is that he is on a secure connection, I think.
If I had to guess, I would say that the idea behind this is to force the clueless user that doesn't know anything about the internet to write the https:// when he is given a link that starts that way. Since there is no guaranty whatsoever that a website will redirect you to a secure connection without the user asking for it.
I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, just that I wouldn't be surprised if that's the idea behind it.
Chrome did this and it's problematic.
When a user copies a url they are either required to add the http:// themselves, or firefox could do what chrome did and automatically add the http:// to the url when you copy it.
This is a problem if you just want to copy the domain name and now you have to remove the added http://
He's talking about when you select the URL to copy it to another application, say an email or instant message. At that time you need the http:// so the other app knows it's an URL. Which means you're putting something in the clipboard which is not visible in the user's selection. Which is weird and bad.
Agree. This change is not one that will have a net positive impact. You do not need to type http:// in the bar anyway so not showing will not suddenly boost readability.I would much rather they copied some of the ideas from Locationbar². The Domain highlighting is especially useful.
In Opera, it's only a cosmetic change as long as you don't click the address bar. When you click it, the full url is displayed and selected, along with the http://, so no problems to copy.
(It is a bit disturbing though because it goes a bit too far, and cuts the parameters. for example, if I activate it, right now all I see is "news.ycombinator.com/reply", I won't see the id after. Though I guess most users won't care.)
Why show the address bar at all? Most users don't care about URLs, and they don't type them in, they have google as their home page and they navigate the internet via searches.
27 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 75.1 ms ] threadSometimes it seems like we're desperate for innovation. Someone remind me why are we tampering with how the urls are displayed. Is there some major benefit I'm missing out on and why is this type of thing "news"?
But also very confusing.
Also, leaving off the slash to an index will usually cause the web server to do a redirect to to corrected URL with a slash, causing your user extra latency and your server extra hits.
1) Normal users do not understand URLs, at all.
2) It is in Google's direct financial interest to extend overwhelming control of navigation on the Internet into complete domination, by discouraging navigation by end users and teaching them that the right way to navigate is to use AOL Keywords 2.0 at their friendly local multinational advertising company.
Why would Firefox do this? I don't know. Maybe they have Chrome envy.
Want a conspiracy theory? Firefox receives essentially 100% of their funding -- to the tune of over a hundred million bucks -- from Google kicking back advertising revenue in return for being the default search engine in FF. If a for-profit corporation made a decision in the interests of their sole client whose happiness was worth 9 figures a year, what would you conclude about the motivation for that decision?
The conspiracy theory doesn't really hold up, since as far as I can tell, pleasing Google doesn't affect Mozilla's bottom line either way. The value of Google's happiness to Mozilla is substantially less than $9 million per year. The important metric isn't happiness — it's the binary "Have we avoided pissing Google off so badly that they're willing call off the deal and give up all those Firefox ad clicks to Bing?"
To go beyond the call of duty and actually try to make Google happy by making Firefox worse would be a stupid move — it would only weaken Mozilla's bargaining position with Google.
I agree with that but you can't contradict the underlying technology to make it easier for users to understand. That's just being lazy (in line with your other statements of Chrome envy, etc).
Seems like patchwork to me. If users don't understand URLs then come up with a better way of explaining resources on the Internet to them.
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/2af378ef814c#l8.33
... they're only dropping the trailing slash if it corresponds to the root path. i.e. "www.google.com/" will become "www.google.com", but "www.google.com/webmasters/" will be untouched.
How is showing the prefix in one case and not the other avoiding confusion?
If they want to get rid of it, they should get rid of it fully, like the others, and use a recognizable icon for the modes, but not show it and hid it depending on the case. That's the base of confusion, no?
If the idea is to drop the prefix because it's redundant and useless to most, then it's same for https. All what matters to the end user is that he is on a secure connection, I think.
I'm not saying it makes perfect sense, just that I wouldn't be surprised if that's the idea behind it.
There is no advantage to this kind of change.
- less noise in the address bar
- reminds the average user that they don't have to type http:// to make a url work
(It is a bit disturbing though because it goes a bit too far, and cuts the parameters. for example, if I activate it, right now all I see is "news.ycombinator.com/reply", I won't see the id after. Though I guess most users won't care.)
Hence why Chrome is looking to eliminate the address bar :).