The importance of “http://”
dropsafe.crypticide.com
dropsafe.crypticide.com
On Windows, renaming the file makes appears to work, and the interface will indeed show "foo.cbz". But what it actually does is rename the file "foo.cbz.zip". The actual extension remains entirely hidden and untouchable as long as the global option to hide extensions is turned on.
On the Mac, changing the name to "foo.cbz" will prompt a warning that you might cause the file to open in a different application, and IIRC presents the options of naming it "foo.cbz.zip" or "foo.cbz".
Neither approach is perfect, but I think what this illustrates is the difference between walling off complexity and just hiding it. We see the same difference with Chrome, as hiding http:// is just visual, but the altered way of copying URLs to the clipboard is actually blocking the user's access to that complexity.
Error:Input does not meet STD3 rules for domain name format.
And for everybody else, what exactly is the problem? Copy/paste? I'm sure that can be fixed, even if it means the user setting "show http:// in my address bar" as a preference.
I read a lot on this and other websites about opinionated design. This is one of those things. The chrome team think this is a good idea. Some people disagree. As anyone who has ever run any kind of open source project can tell you, you can't just react to objections with "Okay then let's switch it back". At some point you have to actually make your own decision, weighing up the benefits against the costs, taking into account the number of people experiencing each.
In this case, it seems like a massive improvement for simplicity for most web users, and a trivial, surely quite easily fixed bug for an unknown percentage of the small percentage of users who would ever need or want the 'http:// there.
Just my opinion. I would be interested to hear what other people think.
- the users will alter their behavior when mentioning the URLs (as I did just above). And will wonder why they are not linkable.
Now either the site owners have to jump through the hoops to replicate the second-guessing logic to their sites, or everyone who views the URL, will have to copy/paste manually.
Another couple of questions I will start asking as a user: why does the ftp:// thing pops up in front of the URL if I use it ? And, what is https:// and why is it suddenly there when I only want to go to gmail.com ?
This change noticeably increases the number of places which violate the principle of least surprise. But maybe I am a corner-case :-)
EDIT:
And, if we look at the whole "address bar" under the same UI angle - the path and the query string is equally a useless technobabble for anyone non-geek. So, I think we would go further and just show the host name, while we are at it.
What?! I know of no one who ever, ever, ever said http:// when mentioning a URL. I certainly don’t do that.
#define mention(url) type_or_paste_into_facebook(url)
:news.ycombinator.com
$news.ycombinator.com
!news.ycombinator.com
I would also dispute the idea that only a "small percentage of users who would ever need or want the 'http:// there." Facebook and Twitter can drive as much traffic to some sites as Google. Breaking copy/paste doesn't help in sharing links.
The problem it solves is one of simplicity. http doesn't mean anything to many people. I happen to like it gone - it's a redundant piece of information removed from my UI. I appreciate that.
It's not redundant information, it is information on what protocol is being used. That is important information. And this information is still being displayed, the only difference is it is displayed in an alternate form of an icon. An icon representation introduced by Chromium and unfamiliar to the majority of internet users. Now the Chromium developers have to decide how to display alternate protocols, will https be represented as text or as an icon? Will other browsers use the same icon representation? Are we assuming Chromium users will only use Chromium, will this confuse users who regularly use other browsers?
To say that other bugs will just be fixed ignores the bugs caused by the unnecessarily introduced complexity.
You take issue with the icon. For years browsers have added a padlock to the UI when https:// is being used. Do we therefore need the 'https:// part? Do you think there should be no such icon?
In fact, I would argue that displaying a globe icon for most websites, and a padlock icon for secure websites, is an enormous boon for web security. Consider the previous situation, without icons: you are asking the user to spot the difference between 'http:// and 'https://. This is not something everyone will manage.
You don't like the abstraction because you are comfortable with what is being abstracted away. This does not mean the abstraction is not valuable. It means it is not valuable to you.
Suppose the icon for your email program has a badge on it with an unread count. I'm suggesting that 'http:// is kind of like keeping that badge there with a zero when you have no emails.
The http prefix did nothing when navigating. You could type 'www.google.com' and get exactly the same result as 'http://www.google.com. It is redundant, unnecessary, wasteful. It can be removed, because it does nothing.
This is a usability problem. You just don't experience it.
So if we go with the path of UI simplification, we could as well get rid of the URL (what does this TLA mean for a user, anyway?) and just leave a single input-only field.
Wait, that's exactly what is there today after you click on the icon with the house on it... So, maybe just make a checkbox "hide the URL input" and "show search engine homepage on new tab" ?
when I seen the april fools joke about the redesign of ie9 I thought it looked awesome - http://livesino.net/archives/2587.live
It doesn't solve any actual problem and creates a slew of new ones.
I see the draw backs but the fact I haven't noticed for about 48 hours or more is, well, telling IMO.
It seems they've all been fixed before he wrote the post.
It seems to work when pasting into a terminal. Haven't tried other apps, yet.
And yes, that's a big problem. I don't want to double-check my urls when pasting them into various messengers, skype or whatever. Here's a tip google: If you can't implement it 200% reliable then don't f-ck with something as essential as URL copy/paste. People will not be amused at all.
code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/list?q=label:HTTPStripping
and file a new one if not.
EDIT: I am intentionally not including the "http:// since:
* after looking at it in the omnibox, I decide I like it better this way indeed, and 6 less keystrokes. The others will have to copypaste or the webapp writers will have to figure a way to highlight it :-)
* the copypaste is not working in the linux case either, but that's one of the logged bugs.
It's really the first point that I am trying to say is the biggest impact that this change will have. "If it works in Chrome, it has to work everywhere".
And I am intentionally not clicking the link because ... it's not a link. I have a greasemonkey script that automatically turns plain text URLs into clickable links. But the text in your post is not a URL. It's a domain and a path, but with no scheme it is not a URL.
example.com/foo (http://example.com/foo)
PS: Sorry, I accidentally downvoted you.
But how many average users do you know actively pick what protocol to use? None of them. For them, HTTP is it.
Only geeks use FTP anymore.