SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
Woods
on Thursday May 01 2014, @07:37PM
from the now-all-those-URLs-I-memorized-are-worthless dept.
from the now-all-those-URLs-I-memorized-are-worthless dept.
Yesterday, a Canary build of Google Chrome removed something kind of important from the browser: the URL. Basically, it only shows the domain and leaves the rest of the URL bar as a search field.
Allen Pike, a blogger who writes "about technology and crap like that" suggests burying the URL like this will probably have some usability and security benefits. From the article:
More recently, browsers started hiding the URL scheme. http:// was no more, as far as most users were concerned. In iOS 7, Mobile Safari went even further and hid everything about the URL except the domain. With the Chrome "origin chip" change, the URL will move out of the field entirely, to a tidy little button that many users will never even realize is clickable.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Chrome Experiments with URL-less Web
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 67 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm GLAD I remembered to XEROX all my UNDERSHIRTS!!
(Score: 1) by number6 on Friday May 02 2014, @01:51AM
These arguments about UI design and user preference never fucking end!!
Why is the design paradigm always of the form: INPUT-->[BLACK_BOX]-->OUTPUT
Why is the design paradigm always of the form: X discards Y full stop and 'get over it'.
Why is the design not: INPUT-->[WHITE_BOX]-->OUTPUT
Why don't the people making these GUI systems make them 100% configurable by Userland?
Why don't the people who create all this shit re-engineer the software so that the GUI is like a hot-swappable plugin with total configuration options. I am also thinking of operating systems here too. This is achievable if third-party Programmers (and UX designers) are given a good API and SDK from the creators of the host software.
These GUI preference arguments should not need to exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!
If a UX designer thinks he has invented a better presentation paradigm for your Software/OS ..that's fine, he can package it as a plugin. The user then goes to his Preferences/Control Panel page and he should see a section named "User Interface". The main page here should have a drop-down list of available user interface modules (ie. "Plugins")......the user should be able to click on this drop-down list and see choices like these examples:
Example 1 - we are using Firefox web browsing software:
Default (Firefox 30.0) //this is the built-in option
Firefox 3.x classic //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Firefox 1.x classic //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Palemoon 30.x //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Palemoon 3.x classic //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Example 2 - we are using a MS Windows operating system:
each item is a plugin added by the user which changes the Desktop Environment, Window Manager and all elements to have the same look and feel of that system...to remove the plugin, user chooses another option from the drop-down list, reboots the computer and then navigates to the plugin folder and deletes the plugin if he wants.
Default (Windows 8) //this is the built-in option
Windows 7 //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Windows XP //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Windows 2000 //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
Windows 98 //this is a plugin packaged by a third-party
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02 2014, @07:42AM
1) Defaults are important
You don't go to a good restaurant and expect to have to configure the entire experience to your liking. You trust that the chef and restaurant manager would have picked good defaults. If all diners are expected to configure everything then it's not a good restaurant and the chef is crap.
Same goes for good cars. You can have them user configurable, but the defaults are important. A good car would have good defaults.
2) More choice is not magically good. Not all choices are good. Some choices might actually be >90% bad, so it's best to not support those choices at all. Increasing the number of bad choices just makes it more likely for the user to make bad choices and experience bad outcomes.
(Score: 1) by number6 on Friday May 02 2014, @08:22AM
--> "Defaults are important
Did you read the rest of my post? Default is the built-in option unless a user chooses to install another plugin. Your restaurant/car analogy is nothing but better-than-you scaremongering designed to protect some elitist lifestyles and is just plain bullshit. I'd be making plans to get rid of people like you if I was in charge.
... blah blah blah"
--> "More choice is not magically good
Good, bad, blah blah blah more better-than-you scaremongering shit that says nothing; the only thing not good enough here is you. Getting rid of people like you from application and operating system design teams would be a fantastic move by people involved in the upper echelons of the computer industry.