

Mozilla Labs: The Location Bar Has To Go - peternorton
http://www.conceivablytech.com/7594/products/mozilla-labs-the-url-bar-has-to-go

======
erikpukinskis
I vociferously oppose removing the URL bar for novice web users.

Because where did the intermediate users come from? They were novice users who
somewhere along the way figured out what URLs were. And part of that learning
process is having them staring you in the face every day.

Yes they're geeky. But they're also fucking powerful. And the world is better
because we have intermediate users who use them. Not developers, but computer
savvy, regular people who seriously make good use of URLs.

Hiding them is a terrible idea. Not until we have a replacement that fixes the
usability/confusion issues without throwing away the immense power.

~~~
sambeau
I have been using Chrome at work every day since it first came out and Safari
at home since it first came out. I long for the day that Safari drops the
extra search bar. I am forever typing into the wrong one.

Why have two search boxes when a regular expression can easily and accurately
decipher what you are searching for?

Why does having two types of bar add anything but noise to lives of even the
most advanced users (of which I include myself)?

The URL bar is a relic akin to the human appendix or tail-bone.

Begone.

~~~
brianbreslin
I agree with your thoughts on the 2 bars being wasteful, but we shouldn't
abandon the url bar entirely. Sure give it double function (search and direct
url), but eliminating it entirely seems like jumping the gun.

this seems like a conniving way to drive more traffic to google.com so people
like my parents will then type in the urls they already know into google's
search box

~~~
code_duck
If you type a couple words into the Safari URL bar, you are likely to get an
error page. Type those into the Chrome bar, you get a search for the terms.
Type a real URL into either one, and you go there. Which is preferable, a
search or an error page? It's not conniving, it's convenient.

------
coffeedrinker
"The location bar has to go. It has many problems. For one, it’s always
visible and constantly takes up a large amount of space. Secondly, it’s hard
to read, since people don’t really understand URLs. Moreover, it’s modal: it
has a mode for displaying the current page’s location and a mode for entering
your next destination.”

1\. What is the panic with space on monitors? Stop making everything at 1080
widescreen TV.

2\. If you cannot read an URL then I guess sending links to others in email,
IM, or Facebook is too hard as well. Heck, how are you even going to share the
URL? Some kind of drag and drop that people will have to learn even exists?

3\. It has more than one mode? Like old TV sets that had a dial to tell you
what channel you were on, yet could be set to another channel by turning it?
The bar already as been turned into a search, and URL bar. So we already
dropped from two entry points to one.

~~~
seanalltogether
"1. What is the panic with space on monitors? Stop making everything at 1080
widescreen TV."

Seriously, we've been doing ourselves a disservice by optimizing monitors for
displaying films when 90% of the time we use them to read text.

~~~
Lennie
Didn't know ? They are not film optimized, they are cost optimized.

It turns out if you slide the screen material in the way they do they can
slide more screens from the same material.

You can still get other monitors but they are more expensive.

Atleast that is what I heared.

------
51Cards
The issue here for me would be the difference between 'removing' and 'turning
off by default'. I don't mind if I can turn the bar back on and put it where I
like it as I consider it to be an essential item for me. If it's just a case
of turning it on then no biggie.

I registered a lot of complaints over the removal of the status bar text at
the bottom of FF4, and the fact that I now have to run an add-on to get that
functionality back. It could have EASILY been made an optional element, off by
default, but dragged back into place via toolbar customization. As long as you
maintain the option to restore classic GUI options then altering the defaults
for the 'typical user' doesn't bother me much. But don't remove something
entirely and go 'So sorry, too bad.' when it would have been easy to maintain
the option.

~~~
kristiandupont
The possibility to install an add-on _is_ an option to get the classic GUI
back - one that doesn't add to the download size of the program and more
importantly, that doesn't create noise in the code base. Maintaining one small
feature seems easy but they accumulate.

~~~
51Cards
In my personal opinion offsetting a few KB of extra download size with perhaps
years of system resources lost to run an extra add-on makes no sense for
something that has been there all along. Not to mention that removal of the
'status bar' required the addition of a new bar to hold Add-Ons, the code to
overlay the link preview on the URL bar is far more complex than a single
status label, etc. The status text removal made the code more complex, making
it a draggable element would have been peanuts extra. Not saying it applies to
every case but this one was about as simple as it can be.

------
gbrindisi
Whitout the address bar I'm afraid we'll see a new peak in phishing attacks.

~~~
jokermatt999
Is there any good solution to this? One suggestion I like is adding a secure
padlock style icon for traffic over HTTPS, but that doesn't cover every case.

~~~
rmc
You have to know more than if the page is HTTPS. I could put a fake facebook
page on <https://evil.example.com>. Normal users could go to it, see the HTTPS
icon, see that it looks the same as the facebook login page, and think
everything is OK.

------
jerhewet
Mozilla Labs obviously needs adult supervision.

Removing the status bar (now requires an add-on) and the menu bar (now
requires tweaking about:config) should have been a warning that the people at
ML were operating without a clue, but the removal of the address bar goes far
beyond just plain ignorance.

~~~
pkamb
The menubar is useless cruft from the 1980s. Can't believe that it's still
such a huge part of the OS X user interface.

Bravo to Microsoft Office, Chrome, Firefox, etc. for abandoning the menu bar
entirely in their new versions.

~~~
quicksilver03
Of the 3 products you mention, Firefox is the only one which I have kept,
since they have at least the option of turning on the menu bar.

Until there's an option to turn on the menu bar, Office and Chrome (and
everything which mimicks their mistakes) have no place on my machines.

~~~
pkamb
I can kinda understand Office. Tons of commands, you grew up using the menu
bar to access them, etc. It's hard to change.

But for browsers? I'm genuinly curious what menu bar commands you're hitting
in a browser on a daily basis. There can't be that many. Grouping them all
under one menu button to simplify things and free up screen real-estate isn't
that big of a deal.

------
wmeredith
I realize that I'm in the minority as a power user but this would/will seal
the deal on me leaving Firefox behind.

~~~
rhelmer
Hrm, as a power user doesn't that mean you are more comfortable customizing,
like turning the address bar back on?

Also, eliminating the address bar seems to be a trend among the major
browsers, if anything I would expect Firefox to be easier to revert the
behavior (see how easy it is to switch back from tabs-on-top, for example).

~~~
CamperBob
The problem is, Mozilla has moved steadily in the direction of making it
harder, if not impossible, to re-enable features they've decided that we don't
need.

~~~
rhelmer
Can you give a specific example? My example about relocating the tab bar is
pretty easy; either View->Toolbars or just right-click on the toolbar.

~~~
CamperBob
The bottom status bar comes to mind.

Basically, here's my beef: I own both an iPhone and a computer with a 30" Dell
monitor. They are not even remotely alike. Design decisions aimed at making
the browser on my PC look and work more like the one on my iPhone are
wrongheaded, misguided, and arguably batshit insane, from the perspective of
someone who has actually seen, and in fact regularly uses, both platforms.

Vertical space, for one thing, is not at a premium on my PC. It should not be
treated as a resource to be conserved at all costs.

------
makmanalp
Has anyone even considered the security implications of this? The number 1 way
to train users against phishing is to tell them to look at the address bar.
Once they know what it means (which in my experience takes a minute to
explain), they can easily tell that Bancofamericaa.com is not the bank of
america.

------
AlexC04
I'm not sure how many people here are "domainers" but this could very well end
up being a nuclear bomb dropped on the web domain industry.

I honestly can't think of all the implications of how this might change how
people interact with the web, but what value is a short memorable domain name
(ie: "color.com") if browsers are redesigned to eliminate direct type ins?

Perhaps not as big a deal if the location bar is set to auto-hide, and expand
on mouse-over ... but it would really be a tragedy for the industry to
disappear.

There are a few domainers on here (Ohashi, Michael Cyger, others?) I'd love to
hear some of their comments on how they think the domain industry would
change.

~~~
hollerith
The domain name would still influence Google results for the keywords in the
domain name :)

------
lmarinho
As a "vertical screen space nazi" I surely sympathize with the proposal. I
always try to customize my software to use as little toolbar space as
possible, maximizing the actual content space.

However, suitable alternatives would have to be found for common usage
patterns associated with the location bar, in particular I can think of the
following:

1\. Properly displaying your location relative to the structure of a website.

2\. Verifying the security and validity of an address you are visiting.

3\. Typing new addresses and search queries.

4\. Copying and sharing the location you are in.

I can think of a few UI alternatives for each of those use cases and the
article presents some others, many would require a pretty big change on the
way we do things on the Web.

------
xl-brain
This notion that the URL bar is too complicated is just plain poppycock.

I have a feeling most of the folk pushing for this have a vested interest in
search. Maybe they are just overly eager UX people trying desperately to put a
fingerprint on something.

~~~
throwaway32
This honestly feels like another case of Gnome 3, where a group of
inexperienced "UX" people want to make a big splash and change things and take
away features as part of their "grand vision". If you disagree, you are wrong.
If you have alternate suggestions, you will be ignored.

I think it fundamentally arises from the perception they are developing the
interface for some kind of idealized idiot/user that doesnt exist. As is
usual, software written for "other people" misses the point and just generally
sucks.

~~~
pkamb
See also: Chrome removing the "Go" button.

------
Kylekramer
Not to be too cynical about it, but I'd trust the move a lot more if the two
companies leading the charge didn't make all their money off of search ads.

------
Yxven
Why are we using a GUI anyway? Instead of using unity to add command line
functionality, we should just use a terminal. Not only would commands be easy
to add, we can leverage existing ones! Speaking of saving screen space, images
need to go. I estimate we could save 5 pixels per page with this small change.

------
caf
The major problem with this is that URLs are currently used for one very
important thing, for which there is no widespread alternative: showing the
"owning entity" of the site you're visiting. In Internet terms, your domain
name _is_ your identity - in a very real way, Facebook's identity is
"facebook.com" more than it is "Facebook Inc.".

SSL verifies the hostname of the site you're connecting to, so for SSL to be
any use at all, the hostname has to be meaningful and visible.

(I do think you could get away with hiding everything but the domain name
and/or hostname by default - the signal-to-noise ratio in the rest of the URL
is pretty low anyway).

------
kule
Hmm I'm undecided on this; I can see both sides of the idea but I do wonder
whether it will make sense to a newcomer to the web?

Also remember this idea first appeared on Chrome. Chrome is developed by
Google. Google is a business, that realistically, has a vested interest in
users not understanding urls - it means less direct site hits and hopefully
more traffic via Google.

~~~
Lennie
The current example extension you can use to try it out does autohide of the
addressbar with it's buttons.

It is visible when first loaded and when you change tabs, etc.

I think it is pretty easy to find.

------
uast23
I wonder why no one is considering auto-hide mode! That sounds like the most
feasible option.

~~~
asadotzler
If you looked at the demo, you'd see that's precisely what this experiment is.

------
janjan
> The location bar has to go. It has many problems. For one, it’s always
> visible and constantly takes up a large amount of space

Not a problem on my old 4:3 laptop screen but I dread the time when my current
laptop dies and I have to deal with one of those 16:9 models.

Right now I have 1400x1050 but in the future I would have to deal with
1440x900 or 1600x900. The height difference is more than the height of the
location bar.

~~~
eropple
Or you can get 1680x1050. Same great height, less-filling width.

~~~
janjan
Yeah, I could, but such a laptop would not fit my favorite backpack ;)

Actually I'd like to own a laptop with a 1400*1200 screen, because I spend a
lot of time reading articles and don't care for width.

~~~
eropple
My work MBP is a little big at 15" and has a 1680x1050 (nonstandard, but the
only option for the matte screen). My 12" personal laptop has 1440x900 and
that's pretty nice at the size, the pitch is almost the same as the MBP.

------
hinchley
A potential side effect of hiding the address bar is that over time web
developers may become less motivated to use "clean" human readable URLs (out
of sight, out of mind). This could in turn reduce the ability of advanced
users to easily understand the link structure of site, and thereby extrapolate
the URLs of other pages (something I do regularly).

------
andrewflnr
At first I thought, "that's crazy!". But if you let me unhide it when I press
Alt-D, I'd rather save the space most of the time.

------
bugsy
I like the way Safari does it. The location bar searches history and book
marks and has a instant search result popup. The other one does the same for
Google or whatever search engine is selected. Both are useful and I always
want to search in ONE and exactly one of these, not both.

------
kujawa
This is approximately the dumbest thing I've seen since the "no www" movement.

------
rch
Does anyone else enjoy the panels side-toggle feature in Opera?

I would be just fine with moving the url UI elements into a panel, so long as
I Never have to give up the the side-toggle widget...

~~~
Lennie
I did notice Opera shows on Youtube: www.youtube.com/watch but on clicking on
it, it will show: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXXXX>

So they leave out the the request parameters and the protocol to dumb it down.

------
Raphael
Ubiquity, not "Ubiquitous". It's funny how when you actually know about the
subject of the article you realize the author can be misinformed.

------
pasbesoin
I swear, the effectiveness of browser controls has been _regressing_ over the
past couple of years.

I know this will be inflammatory, but I'm really reaching the opinion that
it's time to take a few of the worst of these "image ueber alles" designers
out back and, well, play them that provebial violin.

------
silon
Must download location bar add-on.

~~~
Lennie
Actually, currently it is an extension to (auto)hide the location bar.

Nothing to worry about

------
trezor
Right now my FF5 main toolbar which is stuck between the actual content and my
tabs contains the following elements:

    
    
        * Back and forward buttons
        * Reload / stop button
        * Address-bar
        * Search/google box
        * Three buttons provided by various extensions
        * A feedback button, since I'm on a beta.
    

Let's say they remove the address-bar (and the search/google box). I'll still
need a space for the rest of my UI elements. Lets say I dont have those
extensions and wasn't running a beta.

In that case, I'd still need a place for those back/forward and stop/reload
buttons. Or are they going to take those away as well?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but in my (humble) opinion it would mean
access to (other) crucial functionality would be severely displaced. I'm
definitely not sure I like the direction which all this extreme UI minimalism
is heading.

~~~
Lennie
Have a look at the extenion, it is in the mozilla labs blogpost:
[http://mozillalabs.com/prospector/2011/05/20/lesschrome-
hd-m...](http://mozillalabs.com/prospector/2011/05/20/lesschrome-hd-more-
space-to-browse/)

What is does is autohide the whole bar.

All it leaves is the tab bar with the Firefox-button and some kind of
Panorama/Tab Candy pull down thingie.

------
CamperBob
Sigh. Sounds like the next Firefox release will require yet _another_ half
hour's Googling and hacking to figure out how to restore yet another useful
feature removed by the Mozilla team.

------
georgieporgie
In other news, the NHTSA, citing road user confusion, has declared that all
street signs shall be removed. The only remaining signage will declare the
city being entered.

------
clobber
Are we expected to type all URLs into Google search now? This is an awful
idea.

~~~
sp332
A URL bar appears if you open a new tab, hover over a tab, or press Ctrl-L.

------
chrisjsmith
Please don't break conventions. They are there for a reason!

~~~
cryptoz
> Please do not break conventions. They are there for a reason!

There, I fixed that for you. If you're so upset about breaking conventions,
please stop using contractions in your sentences and revert to conventional
English. Thank you.

Language changes. Technology changes. This change will bring problems and
challenges - as did the contraction ('they're' 'their' and 'there' got a lot
worse) but we will solve those problems.

~~~
chrisjsmith
Contractions are conventional both in spoken and written languages and have
been for centuries.

The problem here is that the technology has not changed. We are just trying to
hide more of the machine from the operator. This will keep happening until the
operator is dealing with such a high level abstraction that they no longer can
or will understand the machine. I use the term operator rather than user as
that implies less of an understanding barrier.

