
Chrome's experiment of hiding the URL is awful - craigc
http://disconnected.craig.is/where-did-my-url-go-chrome/
======
fixermark
I can't agree at all with the author's basic premise, which makes it hard to
agree with the rest of the article.

>> URLs are the building blocks of the web.

The web has lots of building blocks (hyperlinks, requests, the underlying
protocols, HTML, and on the modern web: Javascript and XmlHttpRequest). We
hide most of that implementation detail from the user because it's non-
essential to the task at hand.

How essential to the task at hand is the URL for most users? I may need a
building's address to find it; once I walk into the building, do I need to
continuously see that address?

>> Every page has a unique URL so that you can identify it and share it with
other people.

That's a significant mis-statement of what a URL is. URLs have never been
unique (witness www.foo.com vs foo.com), don't necessarily identify the page
(witness dynamically-generated pages that are built with information from the
client's cookies or state on the server), and their utility as a sharing tool
is limited to what the server allows (witness access control). They're uniform
resource locators... Nothing more, nothing less.

A URL is a tool. A useful tool, certainly. But I don't keep all my useful
tools constantly on display on my desk; I keep them in toolboxes until I need
them. So I'd say "See how this experiment pans out."

~~~
gcb0
> We hide most of that implementation detail from the user because it's non-
> essential to the task at hand.

and then you have tons of security holes and bugs. Remember when browsers
thought it was nice to hide loading from the user, and every site had to add
"do not click submit twice" and such? what's next? one page apps relying on a
share button and then having to write "do not share via the hidden URL"?
...google maps was like that for ages now that i think of that...

We should be coming up with ways to make information denser and more
meaningful. not scarcer.

~~~
fixermark
"Do not click submit twice" isn't a side-effect of hiding loading; it's a
side-effect of sites taking something that should be idempotent (a single
purchasing transaction) and failing to code it to be idempotent. Nothing about
the page loading UI would have prevented that issue.

------
dannyr
I observed a bunch of high-schoolers using the web.

They go to Google to visit a site. They don't type URLs.

They go to google.com, enter "Facebook" and click on the 1st result.

Remember the Facebook Login fiasco?

[http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_m...](http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_meme)

Google showed this post when people searched for "Facebook Login":

[http://readwrite.com/2010/02/10/facebook_wants_to_be_your_on...](http://readwrite.com/2010/02/10/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login)

~~~
downer74
...and that's because they are fucking stupid.

You know what I recently observed? A bunch of kindergarteners fastening their
shoes to their feet with velcro straps.

Their shoes also had little blinky lights on them, so that cars don't run them
over, when they chase a soccer ball into the street. Let make all the adults
wear velcro shoes with blinky lights on them too.

~~~
mjcohen
I started using velcro-fastening shoes when I had a mild stroke that prevented
me from tying laces. Now, I continue to use them because (1) they are very
convenient and easy to adjust, and (2) I go dancing a lot and find them easier
to switch to my dancing shoes.

Considering how often I have to retie the laces while dancing, I would
definitely consider getting dancing shoes with velcro.

------
skywhopper
In re the comparisons to iOS7 showing only the domain name of the site you're
on: Mobile browser UI is a completely different design challenge. Yes, I found
it jarring at first to see only the domain name, but the full URL was _never_
visible in Mobile Safari on the iPhone, except on the shortest of URLs. But on
a desktop web browser, showing the full URL is a critical piece of the UI, and
it will confuse far more people than it will help to remove it.

------
junto
I hope I can always get access to the URL. I frequently have to switch the
'smart' geo tracking language selection in the querystring from de-DE that
some shortsighted developer thought meant Germany === German to en-US or en-
GB.

I'm looking at you Google as the worst offender. I swear that some developers
have never left the US.

Geo location != preferred language.

Accept-Language header in my browser is telling you what I want. Listen to it.

~~~
Semaphor
The accept-language header is dead. It's simply ignored by every site. Some
crappy sites like Origin even make it impossible to set the language to
anything but German even by changing the URL directly. Google took years to
even allow me to manually set everything to English, until about 1-2 years ago
some settings were impossible for me to reach in English even when everything
was set to English.

It's just like with Windows, applications use the location instead of the OS
language to chose what language to default to.

L10n is broken. And no one seems to have any real interest in fixing it. The
tools are there but they get ignored by pretty much everyone.

~~~
xxs
Geo-location by IP is one of most horrid abomination ever created. Try a road
trip in Europe, every single day google believes I speak/read/understand a
different language. If that's not bad enough, living in a country where one
doesn't speak the local language basically means not using the service.

Stuff like .../?hl=en may help indeed (but it has to be put manually.

~~~
Ironlink
I am unable to recreate this problem.

My Firefox sends the following Accept-Language: "en-us,en;q=0.8,sv-
se;q=0.5,sv;q=0.3".

When I go to Google.com in a new private browsing context, I am redirected to
Google.se with English language. When I go straight to Google.se in a new
private browsing context, the page is in English.

~~~
junto
To be fair. I've just rechecked and you are right. I have the same behavior in
Germany. Maybe someone is listening!

Ads though. Still in German. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm even more blind to them in the wrong language. I guess that is a good
thing!

------
avodonosov
I agree, it's awful. URLs are the central concept in the web. People should be
aware that they are browsing certain URL at the moment. Be able to exchange
links.

~~~
mantrax5
So then a SHARE button in the browser exposing the URL would accomplish all
the goals you listed.

~~~
avodonosov
Aha, by that logic, they then hide the SHARE button, but introduce new SHOW
SHARE BUTTON button.

~~~
Karunamon
Admittedly the "hiding functionality" kick that developers seem to be on these
days is starting to get rather grating...

------
micro-ram
> I would wager that most people who fall for phishing attacks are not people
> who look at or understand URLs to begin with. Updating the URL bar to show
> just the host is not going to cause more people to look at it.

I respectfully disagree that it is less secure. Showing _only_ the domain will
reduce the clutter to where the user _can_ determine which domain they are
typing their password into. I say _can_ because in the phishing example the
user would be unable to determine the domain name.

The full url is only a click away. A click that is going to be happening
anyway when the user wants to copy the URL.

I welcome the clean look as user. As a developer I will re-enable the full URL
on my development machines, but not on my family members machines.

------
Jayschwa
> A better UX solution to this problem would be coming up with a way to detect
> pages that do not seem legitimate

Easier said than done.

~~~
shawnz
In fact they do that already. The problem is that it's not perfect.

------
xd
He has a good point .. why is it "Search Google" .. the internet isn't Google,
last I checked anyway.

~~~
andybak
Because companies look for opportunities to refer to and reinforce their
brand. Exactly as you would if you'd built a browser.

~~~
azakai
It's natural for companies to do this, but also natural for people to be wary
of them when they do so.

------
harshreality
What's wrong with bolding or otherwise emphasizing the TLD plus one more level
of the domain? I wouldn't even mind (I would, but I'd get used to it) the url
bar showing com.ycombinator.news/item?id=7694967 to avoid super long
subdomains obscuring the main domain. But forcing a click to show the full
uri? That's going to eat up a lot of aggregate developer time.

It also does nothing to address a major problem: companies using alternate
domains for their services. It does me no good to know what the real domain is
without any other distracting information, if I can't tell whether than real
domain is trustworthy. The browser would have to maintain a map of trusted
organizations and domains they're known to use, and show the trusted official
domain in place of other domains. Which is problematic for several reasons
(not the least is the effort required to maintain such a list), and could lead
to additional security problems in edge cases (domains transferred to new
owners, etc).

~~~
plorg
I suppose this is somewhat off-topic, but confusion of TLDs reminded me of the
following story:

When I was still using a dumbphone I figured out that AT&T would let me sync
my contacts to the web. I figured I'd try to do that to see if I could make
them more manageable (by not having to edit them on a tiny screen with T9).

I searched all over the AT&T account page (att.com - where I view and pay my
bills) and couldn't figure out how to access my contacts on the website.
Eventually I googled enough to find out that I needed to manage contacts
through att.net. That website redirected to a Yahoo page (att.yahoo.net) which
didn't take the same credentials as att.com (that is, the att.com user:pass
did not work), but if one was signed into the dot.com they could automatically
be logged into the dot.net. It's extremely confusing.

Once logged in, I was presented with an interactive flash or heavy javascript
page which, if not for the .csv import/export feature, I would find much more
cumbersome than even just using the phone.

Before I managed to get logged in I clicked on numerous pages that redirected
me to att.yahoo.net. Because it is labeled (and decorated) as a Yahoo webpage
(and is, I assume, operated by Yahoo), I was quite confused over what
credentials to use and if I was in fact at the proper website.

------
xutopia
I actually disagree with the blog. I don't work for Google but I think my
parents would be better served with just knowing which domain name they're on
rather than having to parse through a huge url.

~~~
DougWebb
If that was the case, then emphasizing the domain name within the url would
address their needs, while preserving the full url for anyone who needs/wants
it. I'm looking at Firefox's url bar as I type this, and the url text is all
medium grey except for ycombinator.com, which is black. There is absolutely no
confusion about what site I'm on, and no need to _parse through a huge url_.

------
VMG
The path and query parts of the URL my address bar is _/ item?id=7694968_. To
the server, it's vitally important (as is the cookie). Especially to the
average user, it's complete noise.

~~~
tumultco
Some path components are not made for humans, but many are. I regularly type
in twitter.com/ and a user name or apple.com/ and a product. Or on GitHub I'll
change the page number in the URL to advance 10 pages. Also, domain names can
be just as noisy with subdomains.

How do you define an average user anyhow? I think there's only more common use
cases. Everyone has their special needs and uses on the internet.

~~~
VMG
You'll still be able to type twitter.com/ and you'll still be able to display
the URL explicitly, it just won't be visible by default. Most people don't
need that feature most of the time.

------
stronglikedan
> The URL is still accessible in iOS by tapping the URL bar, or in the Canary
> experiment by clicking the origin chip or hitting ⌘-L.[0]

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. So, you have to click the origin
chip to modify or share the URL. There's even a handy keyboard shortcut. What
am I missing?

The examples in the link[0] show that it's actually beneficial.

[0][http://jakearchibald.com/2014/improving-the-url-
bar/](http://jakearchibald.com/2014/improving-the-url-bar/)

------
MAGZine
> There is a reason they have always been front and center in all web
> browsers.

Just because a design idiom had prevailed doesn't mean that it's correct or
even good. People generally don't care about the url, they care about the
site. This is like the browser saying "Starbucks" rather than "Starbucks,
3-1202 21st E, Falseville BC".

~~~
tty
>This is like the browser saying "Starbucks" rather than "Starbucks, 3-1202
21st E, Falseville BC".

Is it? What if "Starbucks" were your bank? What if you knew that apart from
your bank there's non-bank entities mimicking your bank's looks in an effort
to get your personal information? Would location still be irrelevant?

~~~
true_religion
No one is mimicking your bank by putting the info to the right of the domain
name.

They mimick the look of the bank and pick a domain like
your.bankofamerica.getreadygo.com

~~~
cynwoody
A few years ago I got an email advising me my account had been compromised,
and I needed to follow a link to get the matter resolved.

Mousing over the link, I saw
[https://www.bankofamerica.com/[lots](https://www.bankofamerica.com/\[lots) of
gobbledygook followed by an ellipsis]. So, to see it all, I copied it to the
pasteboard and pbpasted it into an open Terminal window. The gobbledygook
ended with an @-sign and a domain that resolved to a Chinese IP.

About the @-sign syntax:
[http://stackoverflow.com/a/4981309/315083](http://stackoverflow.com/a/4981309/315083)

------
adventured
The nice thing about this, is that if it's really annoying to users, then
Chrome will bleed market share to other browsers. The browser market has shown
time and time again that when the developers mess up, they get punished and
another browser rises to the top.

------
politician
Hiding the URL means hiding, or encapsulating, HTTP(S) from the user.
Eventually, paving the way for a replacement of that venerable document-
centric protocol for something more app-centric. That's my bet anyway.

~~~
andybak
By "my bet" do you mean:

1\. "Google has a master plan and are gently testing the water to see how far
they can push it"

or 2. "I think this is where trends will eventually carry us"

(2) is quite reasonable and (1) is a conspiracy theory that I personally think
is a little absurd.

~~~
politician
Thanks, but yes, I think the long-term trend takes us away from documents and
towards integrated web-delivered apps. Today's hack of JavaScript, DOM, CSS,
and Ajax will eventually be smoothed into a simpler arrangement more suited
for apps than documents. I think technologies like Dart, SPDY, HSTS, and Web
Components foreshadow that future to various degrees.

------
crashandburn4
I still think this is terrible. It flies against the principles of HATEOS, we
have a design idiom that web developers /should/ be following to show us
precisely where we are and what is happening in a website, why would we want
to lose all of that information.

I would be very unhappy if they removed the option to disable this from
chrome, almost to the point that I'd consider changing browsers (and I like
chrome...)

</rant> (sorry about that)

~~~
micro-ram
> why would we want to lose all of that information.

Because the url past the domain name is not for the user to be messing with
most of the time. We the developers control everything to right of the first
single slash. Maybe if it was hidden then it would force us to do a better job
showing the users where they are in our sites with breadcrumbs and menus and
at the same time keep them from trying to poke around in places where they
shouldn't be. I think this is a perfect opportunity to open up our minds and
build better UI inside the frame.

~~~
stan_rogers
Um, no. If I want to share a link to a specific page, there's no reason to
assume that I want to share any of the query string that is not actually
required for somebody else to see the same page (like all of the tracky
goodness that seems to be ubiquitous on the web these days) -- and for the
same reason, there's no good reason for you to assume that I want to click on
a "share" thingy on your page. And while breadcrumbs may aid me in navigation
on my visit, the "how did I get here?" stuff has absolutely zero value to
anyone who arrived at the page using a deep link. Oh, and if you make any of
that compulsory, you won't get a link; your information just became valueless.

------
tomorokoshi
Hiding the URL is a natural step on the way to total TV-fication of the web.

People search for "facebook" on Google in order to log on to Facebook because
it works, and they are not interested in learning a more efficient way,
because they are not interested in learning anything, they want to go to
Facebook.

URLs look like math formulas, and who cares about that except some geeks? Math
is hard, let's go shopping.

------
prayerslayer
I just wanted to point out here that Chrome already emphasizes the domain [1]
as this is a common proposed solution in this discussion. The visual clues
should/could be stronger though.

[1] [http://imgur.com/v04aL41](http://imgur.com/v04aL41)

------
jarnix
I agree that the grey box with the domain name should be more visible. Users
who enter their personal informations anywhere do not read the URL and won't
see the domain name on a grey button that looks like a "passive" piece of the
interface.

------
Istof
Google is also working at hiding URLs/sources for Google search results (image
search for example)... so it is not only a Chrome experiment

------
general_failure
I think this is a good idea for non-techies. Most people just search anyway
and click on the first link or rely on autocompletion.

------
gcb0
IOS does that. and for once i want to see apple remove one feature from google
via lawsuits :)

------
Shorel
Showing the URL does no harm to me.

However,

Hiding the URL makes Google's search more valuable.

------
gcb0
90's called, they wanted they AOL Keywords back.

