Now this is something that I find really interesting. We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don’t, you’re demonstrably wrong), but Google recently made a change in the developer version that ruffled some feathers: the URL field will no longer show the “http://”. This made a lot of people very upset.
For a while now, Mobile Safari has been doing something similar, although I do think in that case, it’s about saving space. On Mobile Safari, the scheme is hidden until you tap the URL field to edit. The developer version of Google Chrome takes this a step further, and omits the scheme completely. Bug reports were filed, and in true internet fashion, discussion ensued.
A few things need to be made clear about Chrome’s implementation of this feature. The first thing that jumped into my mind was this: some applications, whether they be web or real ones, actually require you to add the scheme (for instance, to autoparse URLs). Google claims to have solved this issue by adding the scheme to your clipboard when you copy and paste URLs from the URL field, however, this behaviour is currently broken in many clipboard implementations. Another thing that you should be wondering about now is what they do with other schemes like ftp, https, and gopher. The solution here is decidedly simple: those will still be shown.
The reason behind this change is obvious: the URL scheme bears little meaning to most people using a browser – they know it’s there and how to type it, but it doesn’t indicate anything to them. Since computing has been about abstracting away complexity for a while now, it was only a matter of time before browser makers started removing this piece of web history.
That being said, I’m not at all in agreement with the “solution” Google is presenting here. Hiding complexity is not a solution – it’s just hiding something. It’s like Mac OS X hiding away the UNIX file system layout madness with a layer of kid-friendly directories; it only makes things look pretty – it doesn’t actually solve the underlying problem. You can cover up that pile of mangled corpses in your bedroom with a flower-patterned table cloth, but that doesn’t actually address the problem of there being a pile of mangled corpses in your bedroom.
Since 99.999% of the people only ever encounter http://, ftp://, and https:// (did I forget any?), why not create a standard set of easy-to-understand icons to replace them, in cooperation with other browser makers? I mean, if Mozilla and Microsoft can agree on the RSS icon (2005, people, that’s how far back my OSNews memory goes!), surely we can all get along and do something similar here? Most browsers show a lock icon anyway when browsing to an https site, so this shouldn’t be too big of a deal, right?
I don’t think it’s about hiding complexity. It’s just about hiding something that doesn’t really have to be displayed. When you type in a URL, do you always type “http://“? Why does it have to be displayed? Because we’re used to it? I think it’s a natural evolution, just like Windows Explorer (and file managers in other operating systems) has replaced the text-based address bar with a more logical breadcrumb control.
I am with this PoV.
What are they to be always displayed ? Most of sites are http/https, so removing this and adding a key icon to precise https sites is better.
Partially, I am, too. I may explain this.
I would rather prefer a static setting through the browser setup – the advantage is obvious: Because the default is OFF, average users aren’t bothered. Advanced users know how to switch schema display to ON, so if they intendedly require it, they know where to do it.
As it has additionally been explained in the linked “bug discussion”, copying the URI from the input field will include the schema, so it’s easy to transfer the URI from the browser to somewhere else maintaining full standard compliance – and standard is to keep the schema. (The importance to keep the schema with the URI is that the schema is an essential part of the URI, and often programs decide on what specific mechanism to use in combination with a certain schema – remember, there’s more than just HTTP and FTP.)
By the way, have you noticed that the example in the “bug discussion” is shortened to “www.google.com/” – you see the closing slash. Why hasn’t this been removed, too? (Of course I know what it indicates, but does the average user know – or need to know?) That’s a bit confusing. In cases where the default is taken, more shortening is possible, up to “www.google.com” – no schema, no slash.
As you said, boulabiar: Most sites are HTTP anyway. If you use the browser to browse something else, for example a FTP directory, the default should be to display the ftp:// schema anyway, regardless of the setting, just to make sure there’s no confusion.
In most cases, the address bar is not for entering information, it’s mostly to show “where you are”, and given the fact you’re using a web browser, you’re on a web site, so http:// is the most common schema for this. Or tell me: When have you seen someone entering an URI manually, including the schema?
Even if most advanced users won’t like this chance, they will be able to live with it. As I am not a Google Chrome / Chromium advanced user (I still prefer Opera) advanced user, it even doesn’t matter to me, so let the developers have their change. 🙂
I have seen people meticulously type in addresses, including the “http://“, and I think they may start wondering why “The darn computer” is removing what they type. Now, some might just ignore it after trying to re-type it a few times. But maybe they’ll use another browser which doesn’t have a “bug” which removes part of what they type.
(Yes, I’m aware that there are other things that get changed when you go to a website. But the http:// has usually only been changed to https:// which is accompanied by additional information)
Uh, if they can’t understand what’s happening, what are the odds that they have the technical knowledge to download a different browser? Or, for that matter, that they’re using Chrome in the first place?
I don’t find breadcrumb to be any more logical (more like rather annoying, if anything) but maybe it’s just me.
I seriously hope we don’t get the breadcrumb trend implemented in web browsers address bars any time soon.
>>When you type in a URL, do you always type “http://“?<<
Heck no! Sometimes I type “ftp://“. Sometimes I type “SIP:”
Why does Chrome think that “URL” == “http://“?
“There are more things in heaven and URL, Google,
Than are dreamt of in your Chrome.” – Shakespeare
I just had to say that I love the analogy of the mangled corpses
Perfect!
I like the idea of an icon for showing the scheme, but I’m afraid this will confuse non-IT users anyway.
“We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don’t, you’re demonstrably wrong)”
I wonder why not loving Google Chrome/ Chromium is considered as “WRONG”? Are you trying to force the others to love something you like? You are trying to control the others!
crimethink doubleplusungood big browser is watching you
It’s just that Thom reserves his right to insult others, while “normal” users would be banned for the same.
I hate Chrome. I hate it’s privacy invading features. I hate that Ctrl-Q doesn’t work in the Linux version. I hate that it doesn’t play well at all with KDE Desktop. I hate the non-standard placement of its tabs.
But hey, it’s just me. And according to Thom my whole mindset is just wrong….
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
I mean…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Words clearly always convey only and exactly their literal meaning. Thom was clearly calling a large chunk of his readership idiots. Clearly. Obviously.
And he must be burned for it. Burned. With fire!
this may be weird to some of us but some people in other countries do not understand sarcasm. and please do not try to explain it to them it will only confuse them more. truly, they may be better off not knowing. and in thoms defense he does post most of the articles on osnews. maybe with a lot of opinion but he does support osnews.
Yeah, because I *never* get insulted on this website.
When you come out with crud like this comment and your ridiculous post about Opera Mini on the iPhone it isn’t really much of a surprse you get insulted… you’re insulting everyone else by this kind of rubbish.
…?
It’s all connected, and for the record, you are obviously a shill for the anti-opera/microsoft/anti-apple/pro-apple coalition.
Really? I always thought of him as a shill for the pro-Amiga, anti-RISC, Pro-BeOS, anti-Mike OS coalition.
Edited 2010-04-20 02:45 UTC
So we can’t really expect the editors to set a good example?
I thought the sarcasm was obvious, but apparently many did not. I suppose we could add a _sarcasm_ tag, but that kind of ruins the effect – kind of like exlaining jokes as you go along. I guess that is the risk of sarcasm, especially in a more global environment, where such subtleties may be hard to spot. Anyhoo, I thought it was the gentlest of jabs against those who think everything Google does is good, but I am mostly a devout zealot of everything Bing…
There isn’t really a lot of banning that goes on around here, but as you’re obviously new around here, we’ll overlook it this time.
Yeah I don’t like chrome either. It gives me the creeps. Maybe it’s just because I don’t trust Google. Maybe because I use Linux. Also, maybe, because I spend most of my time on a 3G modem that that little extra speed of rendering goes largely unnoticed.
It’s Thom being Thom. You get used to it if you hang out here long enough.
That doesn’t make him right of course; he’s just the kid with the Barbie…errr…Gilmore Girls action set (this website) and in his eyes we are the action figures. If he says it’s wrong for his little dolls to dislike his favorite browser, then by gum we are all WRONG!
I don’t use Chrome/Chromium so I can’t comment specifically on the browser itself, however, I can’t imagine what difference it would make to John Q. Public if the “http://“ were displayed in the address field or not. Most browsers will automatically fill in the http and the “.com” for you if you enter a partial address. People who are griping about this are the same people that would bellyache if you tried to hang them with a new rope!
I think it’s in the same path that’s already been taken with “smart” permalinks. I once sat behind a (Swedish) user who noticed “default.asp” in the URL field and asked “did I do something wrong now, it says default something”. Many browsers already gray out parts other than the domain name.
Is it time to drop/hide www. as well?
You already see such “shortened forms” in advertising material, and in germany sometimes on police cars, reading “polizei.de/bla” or something similar. It’s obvious you can enter it exactly that way into the browser’s address bar, but many browsers complete it to a full standard URI form, including schema, server, and maybe even page name (of the default page).
Although most websites I visit don’t need the www. in the address in order to be accessible, there are a few that do. Maybe it’s my browser (Firefox 3.6.3), maybe it’s my OS (Fedora 13 beta), or maybe it’s the phase of the moon. Whatever it is, I need it.
That´s easy. Because http://www.mypage.com and mypage.com are two different addresses.
If you are using Apache as the webserver you will need to define an alias for both of them or the site will only answer the one that is defined.
It´s not your browser or your OS. Having said that, it is dumb of a web site admin not to define both.
Hope that helps.
Even better, I frequent a website that has a subdomain other than “www”. In some browsers (IE 8, most notably) the “www” is automagically added to the address for me, which triggers a “not found” error. In most modern browsers this is not an issue: What I type is what I get. Fortunately, I rarely need to use IE 8, and never on my home computers.
You can also set it up to have all subdomains point to one place by default, which is the smart way to set it up.
NO NO NO and NO again.
Based of that line of thinking how about we just drop domains altogether and go with keywords like AOL? Wouldn’t that be even easier?
Hiding http:// I can just about accept but not that.
http://www.example.com and example.com are two different addresses they are not the same thing.
www should have never been there in the first place. Domain admins should redirect http://www.example.com to example.com
www is retarded. Always was and always will be.
The only way to get rid of it, is to start redirecting to the non www version and advertising the non www version. With time, we’ll get rid of the most useless part of the address.
It made sense back then, maybe, but not today.
Edited 2010-04-18 23:22 UTC
so is http://ftp.example.com retarded? smtp.example.com retarded? sip.example.com retarded?
No. They are sane sensible subdomains separating different services which may or may not be based on the same continent, let alone in the same data centre. Think of something on the scale of ibm.com instead of “Bobs Corner Store Website”. IBM do a redirect as you state, but it is from ibm.com to http://www.ibm.com, same with microsoft.com
Yeah, they are very retarded.
Users don’t need to be forced to state the protocol they use for every link they establish. In general they don’t even know what a protocol is! It should definitely not be part of the name.
You don’t dial “TELEPHONE-603-913-333”, much less “GSM-603-913-333”.
no you tell them call 603-913-333 or maybe you say email [email protected], a few years back you might have said page me at 306 913 333. Once in a while you might fax 306 913 333.
[edit: damn I forgot ‘dial up my bbs’ at 306 913 333]
Edited 2010-04-20 15:23 UTC
No, because ‘www’ is part of the actual address – http://www.domain.com and domain.com aren’t necessarily the same thing.
You know what? 99.999% of the people don’t know that, and don’t need to know.
They *should* be the same. When they are different, it should be considered a bug, because it will be the cause of many mistakes.
I copy/paste fom the url feed into pidgin sessions quite often. I’m guessing lots of programs don’t know what to do with text if it’s missing the leading http(s). Did they properly implement all the rules around partial url selection?
Edited 2010-04-18 13:16 UTC
There are numerous bugs related to their initial implementation of this that they are in the process of fixing. The pasted link is *supposed* to have the http:// displayed. This is not the case just yet, but pidgin does accept the paste and it just looks wrong, but behaves correctly.
Another bug is when you do this (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41585):
http://ftp.mozilla.org [enter]
Becomes:
http://ftp.mozilla.org
If you then just hit enter, it goes to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org which is just wrong.
As a software engineer, I understand that these are possibly unforeseen bugs with the change to the behavior, but why break something that’s been working for so many years? Keep in mind that those bugs will probably be fixed before they’re moved into beta.
I’m amazed it has stuck around so long. It’s an under-the-hood thing that has zero tangible quality to end users. It still annoys me massively that some sites require you to include the “http://†if you are giving a website address—it’s insane; how are end-users supposed to remember that garglemesh?
I don’t think an icon is a solution either. http:// doesn’t /represent/ anything. It is the absence of encryption; at best. There are too many icons already in the browser and it would only serve to clutter the UI.
The confusion with http:// and whether “www” is needed or not is so bad that advertisers have started to say “search online for ‘x’†instead of giving an actual web address.
The http:// comes in handy when link-ifying arbitrary data. And, obviously, when trying to link to an https login page because some site offers both.
And, I suppose, they shouldn’t remember it, should they? Instead they should copy/paste or drag/drop it. That’s what I do.
That chunk of text represents the scheme / protocol used. Except when it doesn’t. In Chrome/Chromium dev builds. (And apparently some mobile browsers, where it hides it from view unless you tap into it)
My mother will type http://www.google [enter]. Users are all over the place when it comes to something you have to typed. Guess what though? Not all sites require the www. Try to go to http://www.slashdot.org and see where it takes you. So the sites themselves can get rid of www from their ads if they want, except, of course, that it helps things look like an address to a web site.
I guess there’s a silver lining though — Maybe I’ll hear fewer instances of backslash which should be slash. I genuinely wonder where that confusion came from. My first thoughts are the DOS/Windows path separators are to blame, but maybe it has nothing to do with that. Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/727/
But what about the sites that have different routing rules depending on a protocol? IIRC, OpenBSD site used to route You to WWW content when was asked as http://[www/ftp].openbsd.org and to FTP content when asked as ftp://[www/ftp].openbsd.org.
Really? I haven’t heard that since AOL’s keyword days. Where you’d see on packaging: AOL keyword “pepsi”. Which Aol did both because they thought the http:// and www were too confusing as well as trying to fool people into thinking that aol was the internet and prevent them from easily switching over to other isp.
Could you provide an example from the past 5-6 years of some one just saying search for “x”?
The easiest thing to do as a website is to redirect http://www.example.com to http://example.com or visa versa. No user intervention required, nor any explanation. Its 2010, everyone has already figured out their own coping mechanisim for it.
Which, sadly, includes my coworker’s wife opening up IE which defaults to bing, then searching for google, then entering in a web address( including www, so http://www.cnn.com for example) in the search bar and then clicking on it.) Changing chrome’s address bar behaviour is not going to fix that mess.
Saw it just yesterday for More4, a TV channel here in the UK; and I have been seeing it increasingly on TV advertising.
Okay, I’m going to have to just give up on trying to understand the UK.
Found something similar.
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-pontiac
Also, it’d be neat to see the analytics on Bing searches for the term “google.”
This has become very common in advertising in Japan in the past few years, to the point that it’s probably more popular now than showing a URL. The world is a bigger place than [insert country name] :-).
— Gary
And that works *so* well, doesn’t it? Remember the fuss a few months back, of people unable to find Facebook after it dropped to #2 in Google’s results?
I died a little inside. Are these people not checking any other results?
*facepalm*
Edited 2010-04-19 12:21 UTC
I suspect this is more to do with increasing pagerank, since Google supposedly counts clicks as one of the factors
When visiting a http site, the port number is usually ‘:80’ – you can specify another one if you wish, but if you leave it out it’ll be ‘:80’.
It makes sense to do the same for the protocol in a web address: you can specify another one, but it’ll usually be ‘http://‘, so in that case it doesn’t have to be shown.
The only inelegant part is that http and https are both common. OTOH, it’s quite rare these days to have the *same* site available both secured and unsecured – usually the unsecured url just redirects to the secured version – so we can hide both ‘http’ and ‘https’ and use the ‘lock’ icon to show the difference.
I prefer consistency to hiding things that are sometimes unnecessary. But I’m just one of those crazy people who have actually used the browser with the “feature” in question and notice it as “something wrong” according to my eye.
Consistency is hardly ever a black-and-white thing though: for example, one could argue that hiding the port number when it’s not 80 is also ‘inconsistent’ – however I don’t think anyone would propose to always show it
.
Hiding the port number is done when it is the default port number for the scheme. I regularly use alternate port numbers on a daily basis, and it’d actually make *my* life easier if I could always see the port. I’ll not bother to argue that that should be changed though. It’s too late for that.
I see how you parallel the hiding of the “default scheme” and that’s a fairly rational argument, but there is a factor of time involved, in the time that it’s been around that will make changes like this controversial.
Someone else commented about the length of addresses and such, and that it was good to see more information. Well, even if most would consider this information unnecessary, it is information, and it is being hidden. Currently, the way the chromium devs implemented it, you can’t always see the full URI without pasting it. The same thing with the port, really. I’d actually like an option in browsers to show the scheme and port no matter what.
I like the other things Chromium has started doing, such as a red skull and crossbones for self-signed sites, but I prefer to see as much explicit information as possible.
I agree with simplification and sorting out the mess that sometimes OSes can be but this may be going a notch too far.
Why?
Because you already don’t need to type it. Even the www. and .com can be added with a keyboard shortcut that seems to be same for all browsers.
It may create new opportunities for phishing.
It will leave the less tech savvy users clueless wondering where “those things that used to be there” went and whether I’m really visiting by bank site or not … for the ones that even bother to check the URI anyway.
Most people know that things are secure when they see the ‘padlock’. Surely this is the only icon that is needed.
For most users everything else is http. The average user will never browse an FTP directory, although they might follow a link that takes them to an FTP download
Edited 2010-04-18 13:53 UTC
The reason why they displayed it in the first place was back in the days we used a lot of different protocols and sometimes we made new ones.
Now always showing us the full link is actually helpful because if you are learning HTML
and you go a href=”www.osnews.com” vs a href=”http://www.osnews.com“ you can get 2 very different results. (depending on browser)
No a lot of us think that people are either IT Savvy or dumbed down idiots. But there is actually a wide scale of people out there. Some are able to make the connection of the Location Bar Text with the HTML code. If you remove that Location information then when you are making the page you are likely to make errors and when you see the rule of doing http:// first will seem really odd to you.
I dont use chrome, and OSnews should pack its chrome love and let me be the judge.
about http://
do remember there are browsers out there that actually handles ftp protocol. like, browsers with 90+% market share?
that little space saving is not important to me.
and I dont even know why such a small, mostly meaningless change on chrome should be given special attention?
Firefox hides