... They especially have no idea what its absence means.
Oh, I wholly agree, this makes sense for the average user. It's just wasted space to most people. They've already dimmed everything but the domain name (a brilliant idea in every single way), making the prefix' "cognitive impact" rather minimal already. To that end, I don't personally see that removing it is necessary, nor helpful. So at best it maintains the status-quo, and arguably lowers it slightly.
But, since these decisions are largely made for the majorities, it does make sense that they're going that route; I'm not really annoyed, I'm just mildly disagreeing with the decision.
As to the white non-secure flag, I'd tint it slightly yellow so it raises an eyebrow for people interested in their own privacy; white is too ignorable, and much harder to see at a glance. On the whole, it's an interesting idea, as it'd effectively turn the whole http/https battle into a slight-but-real push to move to https entirely.
> As to the white non-secure flag, I'd tint it slightly yellow so it raises an eyebrow at people interested in their own privacy; white is too ignorable, and much harder to see at a glance. On the whole, it's an interesting idea, as it'd effectively turn the whole http/https battle into a slight-but-real push to move to https entirely.
Exactly what I'm thinking. Just raise it as info, then change it to a warning progressively over time, with some advance warning to web developers.
This is clearly how hiding http:// should be done (if at all). Playing tricks with the clipboard is going to be confusing and frustrating to use. It is also suggested in other comments here; I hope the Chrome devs pick this up.
