Chrome May Drop the URL Bar

An anonymous reader writes "There isn't much Google can still eliminate from the browser's interface. Yet Google appears to be considering a drastic step to free up space in the UI: It may simply kill the URL bar. Instead of showing the URL bar all the time, it may be hidden within tabs. There are some other features coming as well. For example, Google will allow users to be logged into different Google accounts at the same time, as long as you use those accounts in different windows."

Comments

Who needs the URL bar?

[joabj]

Let Google be your portal to the entire Internet! Sheesh.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[devxo]

I bet phishers will love this feature...

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[NoZart]

You wouldn't believe how many people actually browse that way. I have seen my fair share of people that type URLs in the searchfield of their google homepage.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[VanGarrett]

I used to think it was odd, seeing my supervisor do that at work, when I suggested a site to him which might not necessarily be work related. Some great time later, I realized why he did it that way-- If you type the URL into Google, it doesn't show up in the URL bar's history. This was before private browsing and that sort of thing started showing up, and while he wasn't too concerned about what someone might find if they pulled up the browser history, he didn't necessarily want everywhere he's recently gone to appear if someone just happened to sit down at his desk to use the web.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently taught a basic computing course and had one student in particular who insisted on doing that, no matter how many times she was shown the proper way to do it.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[xOneca]

In fact, you can go full screen on almost any browser and nothing but scroll bars are left (at least in Firefox)...

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[VortexCortex]

You wouldn't believe how many people actually browse that way. I have seen my fair share of people that type URLs in the searchfield of their google homepage.

I do. Google spellchecks the URL for me so I don't accidentally get typo-phished. Most times Google will even warn me if the site I'm about to go to may harm my system... Think of this as a manual phishing filter that takes 0% additional resources when not in use, and no effort to disable / re-enable (In FF anyhow: left entry = manual URL; right entry = Search box / URL sanitiser)

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

"on almost any browser"

"at least in Firefox"

I'm sensing a slight mismatch between these. Is it possible that your extensive testing of "almost any browser" extended to, and no further than, Firefox?

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[cras]

I bet phishers will love this feature...

Well, google probably fares much better for most people than typing the URL directly. There's a reason why scammers register typoed URLs.

Then there are of course a lot of people who already use google to type any web addresses, not realizing there's even such a thing as URL bar.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[aix tom]

The danger is not really someone sitting down at his desk to use the web. The danger is giving a presentation to 100+ people on a screen the size of a barn door and then have something embarrassing (like ..uuuu..aaahhhh.. slashdot! Yes! slashdot for example!) hows up in the URL history.

Of course *cough* that never happened to me *cough* ;-P

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Gadget_Guy]

Is it possible that your extensive testing of "almost any browser" extended to, and no further than, Firefox?

On Windows, it also works in Internet Explorer (going back to at least version 6), Chrome, and K-Meleon. They all use the F11 key. I can't test Safari, Opera nor other operating systems until I get off my lazy butt and go to work!

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[228e2]

Theres a URL bar? o shi- 1/0

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most times Google will even warn me if the site I'm about to go to may harm my system...

Most modern browsers like Firefox already do that for you too, even if you type the URL straight in.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[motek]

That's why all browsers now have the 'porn' mode.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[rainmouse]

Well, google probably fares much better for most people than typing the URL directly. There's a reason why scammers register typoed URLs.

Then there are of course a lot of people who already use google to type any web addresses, not realizing there's even such a thing as URL bar.

Of course encouraging more people to browse or find sites exclusively by search engine = more $$$
Oh it might have the added side effect of an extra half inch of screen real estate.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Kell Bengal]

I've seen it happen at a robotics seminar - poor guy pulled up his video player's history by mistake and all the files were located in "c:/megaporn/" He closed it fast, but not fast enough. We were all very polite to him during the coffee break. :)

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[GIL_Dude]

Most modern browsers like Firefox already do that for you too, even if you type the URL straight in.

I thought that Chrome, Firefox and IE would all help to detect phishing sites. The other day I actually received a phishing email (purporting to be from Chase - a company I don't bank with). It was the first time I'd gotten one in years. I figured it was a good chance to test the phishing blocking in Chrome, Firefox, and IE. I went ahead and put the URL into Chrome. It took me to a site that looked like, but was not, Chase. I put the URL into Firefox. It also took me to the phishing site. I put the URL into IE 8. It gave me a "this looks like a phishing site" warning and did not take me to the site. Honestly I was completely surprised that IE did this better. I really haven't used IE for anything but Intranet sites at work in years. I then went to the Google page to report a phishing site and reported this URL. Two weeks later, Chrome still took you direct to the site. Of course so did Firefox because Firefox uses the Google service for detecting phishing sites. From what I can tell, Google never did block the site even though it had been reported. The site itself is now offline (since these sites never have a long shelf life).

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Osgeld]

if it ended up at the same web page who cares?

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as it still appears when I hit CTRL-L or F6 just like the search bar appears when I hit CTRL-F or F3, I see no problem with this.
I never click on it anyway.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[AmiMoJo]

Chrome validates sites for you, and i guess the assumption must be that it is better than the average user at it. That is probably true when you consider that phishing only works because people don't understand URLs.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[high_rolla]

Indeed, and if everyone gets used to using their search engine to enter URL's then Google wins. People start associating the Web with Google (just like they used to with IE in the old days). Google effectively becomes your portal to the internet and gets even more entrenched.

If they pull it off it will be a powerful move for them.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let Google be your portal to the entire Internet! Sheesh.

Kebab.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet Explorer has provided this through Ctrl-O for years. I still press this key sequence even if I'm using Chrome or Firefox out of sheer habit.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe it's possible that "on almost any browser" refers to "you can go full screen", while "at least in Firefox" refers to "nothing but scroll bars are left". This would seem to indicate that the author believes that most browsers have a full screen mode, but he isn't sure exactly which parts of the browser are still visible in this mode in other browsers. He does know that in Firefox, only the scroll bars are still visible. Reading can be hard, especially when comprehension matters. Don't give up!

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[AvitarX]

Not just any browser, but in almost any program.

F11

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Bing Tsher E]

Google is an advertising biz. Maybe the phishing site was from one of their 'associates.'

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Gonoff]

Did you fail him?

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[__aatirs3925]

I used F-11 but Ctrl+O is fine too ;) I only used full-screen mode when my computer screen had 800x600 pixel resolution. These days with 1920x1200 it becomes almost impossible to find a website that demands all of that real-estate. I'm a fan of the status and address bars and if I don't have those then I start to get paranoid while browsing since I don't use an antivirus / malware protector. Sure, I'll know when I get a virus or something but it can be prevented by viewing where the url will lead to before clicking it and I know that both firefox and chrome does an excellent job at warning you about malicious websites but because it's not easy or obvious to report malicious sites, the system isn't -that great-.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[scottbomb]

This causes real problems for people, especially in my business, and it costs them real money. There are a lot of computer-illiterate people who don't know the difference between a search bar and the address bar. Fortunately, most people don't use Chrome and those who do tend to be technically inclined to know better.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[apostrophesemicolon]

sorry for totally OOT reply, but why do people name their porn folders like that? I keep my private files on a folder named "temp" and goes 3-4 levels deep.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[k8to]

I keep my warez in a directory labelled 'porn'. Meanwhile my porn is stored in a directory called 'notporn'. Is this the kind of system you are advocating?

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[atomicbutterfly]

If the folder was called "ultraporn" he'd at least be able to make a Futurama reference.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[superdave80]

It doesn't end up on the same webpage: Using URL bar: typing Yahoo.com and hitting enter takes you to Yahoo.com Using Google search: typing Yahoo.com and hitting enter takes you to a Google search result page.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome validates sites for you, and i guess the assumption must be that it is better than the average user at it. That is probably true when you consider that phishing only works because people don't understand URLs.

What do you mean by that? You mean that it checks to see if the site is on a list of known phishing sites?

That's nice and all, but isn't a replacement for an address bar.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

The left field can be used for "I'm Feeling Lucky" search too, no need to even type the URL just what you want.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Solandri]

Another good reason is to avoid lookalike domains. Say you're a semi-luddite and don't use bookmarks. You want to do your banking and type www.bamkofamerica.com in the URL bar. The bank's website comes up and you do your banking as usual. A week later, you find your bank account has been drained. Someone saw the possibility of typing an 'm' instead of an 'n' in the URL, registered the domain, set it up so it looked just like the real BoA website and conducted a man-in-the-middle attack to harvest your bank login and password.

If you had typed "bamkofamerica" into Google, it would've noticed the typo, told you about it, and substituted the correct site. Not a big deal if you use bookmarks, but for sites where I have logins which I don't bookmark (like amazon.com), I used to get to them via Google instead of directly. Then Firefox added the awesome bar or whatever it's called which is annoying most of the time, but is actually pretty handy for this purpose.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[TriezGamer]

Some of us don't feel the need to hide it. Mine is clearly labeled, but I have no one that I need to hide it from, as my wife is fully aware of it and doesn't mind.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[satuon]

I like Google and I'd like them to win

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[xtracto]

This means that in Firefox 5, the developers will *get* the great idea of removing the content window.

Teeheehee.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[ZeRu]

If you have a site with Google Analytics on it, you might notice that a plenty of people come to your site from Google search of your site's URL.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[dtml-try MyNick]

Same here, I have no need to hide anything in my personal situation. Our porn dir is shared across the home network for convenience matters actually.

For professional situations I use a spare laptop that I never use for anything personal.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, inflatable wives generally do not mind porn.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Nyder]

I bet phishers will love this feature...

Seeing as the URL bar can be made to show the wrong website, i don't think they will care.

It's the mouseover that shows the actual link they don't like.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Nyder]

You wouldn't believe how many people actually browse that way. I have seen my fair share of people that type URLs in the searchfield of their google homepage.

You have no idea how many stupid ass people I have tried to help over the phone, that when I tell them to type an address in the URL field of the web browser, they type it into google search, and then end up on the wrong page?

Probably 75% of peeps.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[marcello_dl]

- Pizza boy! deliver this to Smith family, 123, main st.
- Ok, let me look up where the Smith family lives.

This is retarded, puts one or few entities in control of all web traffic, as the currently central nature of DNS wasn't bad enough, wastes TONS of energy and computing power for an unnecessary step, and another ton when people who just paid for a domain/site ask the web master/registrar why they type mysite.com and sh*t shows up instead of the proper site.

Of course that's likely one of the main reasons why google undertook the chrome project, so they are not going to back down.

UI changes are menacing firefox too, but that one should be more skinnable, I don't mind if it's 10% slower, heck i don't mind if it's 300% slower.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Nyder]

I used to think it was odd, seeing my supervisor do that at work, when I suggested a site to him which might not necessarily be work related. Some great time later, I realized why he did it that way-- If you type the URL into Google, it doesn't show up in the URL bar's history. This was before private browsing and that sort of thing started showing up, and while he wasn't too concerned about what someone might find if they pulled up the browser history, he didn't necessarily want everywhere he's recently gone to appear if someone just happened to sit down at his desk to use the web.

Ya, it doesn't show up in you history, until you click on the link that takes you to it. While google search is good, it doesn't actually show you the whole page.

Now you can use the cache, but if someone is browsing your URL history, they can easily follow the cache links.

Guess the mods are not tech savy today.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Nyder]

sorry for totally OOT reply, but why do people name their porn folders like that? I keep my private files on a folder named "temp" and goes 3-4 levels deep.

I name my porn file: stuff.

Guess what? It's a truecrypt file, so I can't accidently open up my porn for anyone to see.

And when I die, my family doesn't get to see what sort of pervert I am.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being the kind of perverts that we are, my family already know.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[GameboyRMH]

I wouldn't mind making the URL bar auto-hiding - it would show when changing pages, like Firefox 4's new "status tooltip," and then hide after a few seconds unless you mouse over the top area of the window.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Vegemeister]

Because that's what directory names are for? I keep my porn in an encrypted container that gets mounted at ~/Pictures/porn.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

You better be polite! That guy ain't have not any old regular porn, but MEGAPORN!!

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Osgeld]

which you can then goto yahoo with a click of a button

so if your both ending up at yahoo who cares, its up to the user to decide if that extra click is worth it

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Celestialwolf]

I was thinking the same thing. Bad idea.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[purpledinoz]

Clearly he wasn't careful enough. I'm smart enough to store all my porn in C:\pr0n.

Re:Who needs the URL bar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think any company "winning" in this area is a bad thing. I prefer Google over their competition, but they are a company run by people, if the people running it change, so can the company and it can go from good to bad.

fight against facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

who controls the network? what's your access point? chrome or facebook? welcome aristocracy.

Really Stupid Idea

[kyrio]

I guess the "Really Stupid Idea Department" really does exist because I can only see dropping the address bar as a time-losing feature. In Opera I have two horizontal bars, one for the menu and one for everything else (address, navigation, other buttons). Just make your UI extremely configurable, like Opera's, and you have no problems. I have my tabs stacked vertically on the left hand side. I can have more than 50 tabs visible, this way, with no downside.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[zonky]

And it still won't stop people doing this: http://hackadaycom.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/toolbars2.png

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[pieterh]

Did you RTFA? Stacking the tabs at the side is one of the layouts, and the "Address bar hidden in tab" Compact layout is one of four.

Actually I like the idea a lot, it's especially annoying on smaller resolution screens to lose space to something we hardly ever type or read. Sure, it helps people who know what they're looking for against phishing, but such people are unlikely to click on random emails anyhow.

Chrome has been doing a good job pushing browsers forwards, after years of bloat and slowdown, and I'm looking forward to what comes out of this.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[NoZart]

go troll 4chan

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[kubernet3s]

Pretty much every browser has a "fullscreen" F11 option, which hides the Nav bar along with any other pieces of UI. If you need to fullscreen a page to view it better, you always could. You can even navigate with keyboard shortcuts. Its nothing new, of course, but what it is is a forced configuration catering to a rather narrow set of preferences. It's certainly a valid configuration, but it looks to me to be one more example of Google trying to wow us with pointless configuration changes. This isn't going to make the browser run faster or cleaner, it's going to make some people happy because their choice of browser configuration comes out of the box, piss off some other people because their configuration is harder or impossible to set up, and irritate the ever loving shit out of tech-support guys who have to deal with hordes of people answering the question "what is the URL of X site you're visiting?" with confused silence. This is the no-caps-lock look-at-us-we're-so-crazy tactic all over again.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Inner_Child]

While I wholeheartedly agree that this is incredibly stupid, I have to wonder where all the ranting about this was a year ago when it was posted.

(This is how old these mockups are.)

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Goaway]

Which also hides the tabs, essentially crippling the browser. Yeah, no, we do need something better than that, really.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Saint Stephen]

In both ie and firefox i combine the toolbar and menu bar into one. I've been doing this for years

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[hedwards]

No matter how many times I see something like that, it never ceases to blow my mind. Kind of reminds me of the time I got called in to remove over 6 thousand bits of malware from a friend's computer. Literally 98% of the processing time was being used by malware.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[coolmadsi]

In Chrome, Ctrl + Tab cycles between the tabs as usual in full screen mode, just means you can't click on them.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

it's especially annoying on smaller resolution screens to lose space to something we hardly ever type or read

you can thank lcd panel makers (cheaper to produce 16:9 panels than 4:3 ones of same diagonal size), marketing hype ("ooh, widescreen") and asian imports (more 16:9 20 in displays fit in a shipping container than 4:3 ones) for the lost of precious vertical working space..

16:9 is only really good for watching movies (and then hollywood movies aren't even that, they're shorter and wider still) or playing some newer games.. but most people use their computers for web and email, word processing, etc. and it's the vertical that is more important there.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Gadget_Guy]

Which also hides the tabs, essentially crippling the browser. Yeah, no, we do need something better than that, really.

That's true. Of the limited set of browsers that I have tested, only Internet Explorer seemed to get this right. If you move the mouse to the top of the screen the window chrome (not the browser) is displayed briefly and this includes the tabs. If you want to disable this, then you have to start the browser in kiosk mode using the -k command line option. In the browser Chrome, it just displays an "Exit Full Screen (F11)" link.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[mobby_6kl]

Just use a better browser, like Opera. The "1" and "2" keys switch to the next or previous tab, and right click + scroll wheel (or Ctrl+tab) gives a scrollable list of tabs with previews. Of course you can also hide the address bar and just use the F2 input window to type in address.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[kyrio]

I hadn't thought of it earlier, but I changed the menu bar in Opera to the menu button, so I moved that into the corner of the button/address bar and now I'm down to one.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Culture20]

Just rotate it to 9:16 and enjoy the vertical space. I don't know any modern OS that can't handle that. Me, I can't get enough horizontal space.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Kell Bengal]

I have two monitors - one big and horizontal, one small and vertical. It's great because I can display documents like datasheets on the small vertical one and play games/watch movies/do circuit layout on the large horizontal one. The only problem is that monitors have a built-in viewing angle that's not perfectly normal to the screen; the point of optimum viewing is raised about 15-20 degrees. That means, to view my vertical monitor correctly, it has to be tilted sideways by about the same amount, which is really annoying.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[roju]

In Firefox 4's full screen, you can mouse to the top and get some chrome back, including tabs. Ctrl-tab still works to cycle through tabs as well.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Runaway1956]

Something we hardly ever type or read? Mmmm-kay. If you say so. Personally, I often type domain names, and even more often read them. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm an old bastard, and I'm set in my ways, but I actually do read that address bar.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[im_thatoneguy]

It doesn't have to be stupid. Google already dumped the status bar. It's smart though, if you hover over a link it'll pop up. If you hover over a link in the bottom left it'll pop up on the bottom right to not cover it up.

Something similar could be done with the address bar. As the mouse gets close to the top of the window have it pop down a little Bump it and it drops down ready to be clicked.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why I haven't recommended chrome to users. It complicates things. Simplification is NOT always good. There is a reason we have the complexities sometimes and removing them harms ease of use. I have even more issues with Internet Explorer though. Safari isn't any better. Konqueror in 3.x was excellent and much ahead of Firefox even today. Firefox today is very good. Firefox 4.0 I'm not sure about as I haven't seen what they've done to it. Hopefully they aren't copying Microsoft and Chrome.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[icebraining]

That works on 3.6.9 too. AFAIK it's been that way for a long time, possible since 3.0.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[icebraining]

For most people it may be worse, but I find it great. I use mostly chromeless windows, and being able to keep two windows side-by-side with decent width is great. Having documentation open while programming, or having Alpine and an IRC client on the same tag is very useful.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[kubernet3s]

this is actually a bizarre feature of Chrome, and a major reason I don't use it. It's like they're punishing you for not thinking their UI is light enough. Firefox and IE both show tabs on mouseover, and all of the browsers allow ctrl-tab switching. This is not to mention hiding tabs hardly cripples the browser: just hit F11 and switch tabs if you're shortcut-phobic. Or more directly, show the tabs on mouseover in Chrome and Google's ridiculous showboating becomes irrelevant.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[LordLimecat]

but what it is is a forced configuration

Noone is forcing you to use chrome, and complaining that Google is forcing you to use this new model is like complaining that Mozilla forces you to use a fox as your mascot. Dont like it? Use another browser, and continue to cheer this on as competition which drives things onward.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you are just being funny I love that shot but you would be hard pressed to do that in chrome since the extensions are just small icons in the upper right hand corner.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[halowolf]

The URL/Search bar is what I use most in Chrome because I hate using bookmarks. I would much rather spend a few seconds typing in part of the domain name and have it resolved to the website I want than trolling through a bunch of bookmarks looking for the site that I want to visit. I do bookmark hard to find things occasionally but they get deleted after a short while usually because I only need them for a short time.

Its how I use my Mac as well, using Spotlight to launch programs not on my Dock. I've just become sick to death of going through menu's to get to what I want.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[roman_mir]

that person looks very productive.

I like the juggling monkey, what does that do?

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You should check out this recent invention that lets you quickly and easily visit your favourite sites. They're called bookmarks and, if you're using a recent browser, it should already support them.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[enec]

It's the Bonzi Buddy!

A marvellous piece of software from the early 2000s. It's like the paper clip from MS Office, only for IE. Oh and it tells jokes.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[AmiMoJo]

We are old and set in our ways. Most users don't use it much, if at all. In fact I usually look at the title of the tab rather than the URL bar to see where I am.

The only part of the URL that is of use to most people is the domain name, and that only so far as preventing phishing goes. Normal people use the title of the web site rather than the domain. Even many companies tell you to search for their name instead of trying to remember a URL now because all the easily memorable URLs are taken. Japanese companies have been doing it that way from day one because URLs had to be in Latin characters until recently.

This should hardly come as a surprise. Nerds have always been a minority and I'm surprised any of us assumes that Joe Bloggs thinks the way we do.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[AmiMoJo]

Thinking about it most Android browsers hide the URL bar by default, only showing it when the user needs to edit it. I didn't even notice it wasn't there until now.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd complain more about being forced to have crappy resolutions on crappy screens while being told its the greatest thing since sliced bread

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't get it out of my head... It will haunt my dreams...

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Enigma23]

*boggles at the sheer WTFery of it all*

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Enigma23]

I've tried putting tabs on the left/right (yes, I tried both) sides of my browser (i.e., Opera's) window - it just looks hideous, IMHO. My natural inclination is to scan horizontally first, then vertically - probably due to English being my first language. Hmm, I wonder if people from other nations are more comfortable having their tab stacks on LHS/RHS of their browser windows, for languages that are written top to bottom and then horizontally?

What will really help "real estate" issues for web browsing use would be more manufacturers of monitors and laptops offering more models with screens with a 4:3 ratio, rather than 16:9 ratios...

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you RTFA? Stacking the tabs at the side is one of the layouts...

I hunted high and low and can't find a layout that offers tabs stacked vertically at the side of the window. (I know what RTFM means, but not RTFA). Could you give me better directions? I'm running the latest version of the browser under Win7.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Just Some Guy]

Something we hardly ever type or read? Mmmm-kay. If you say so. Personally, I often type domain names, and even more often read them. Maybe it's just 'cause I'm an old bastard, and I'm set in my ways, but I actually do read that address bar.

I read it every time, and hardly ever. That is, every time I click something, I glance at the URL bar to see where I'm at. Every time I manually go somewhere, I hit CTRL+L and look at the URL bar as I type. And after that? Never. I know I'm on Slashdot and wish my netbook could put that real estate to better use than telling me something I already know. I'd like a compromise: show the URL bar for a few seconds after clicking a link or entering an address, then go away until I hit CTRL+L again to re-open it.

Re:Really Stupid Idea

[Culture20]

Ah, I forgot about the LCD mini-pixel usage for fonts, etc. No wonder I rarely see someone use wysiwyg anymore.

Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[guyminuslife]

...but that's going a little overboard. The one thing that you really shouldn't ever try to shuffle away on a browser is the URL bar.

I don't think that's something I could ever get used to.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[geek]

AOL tried hiding addresses with their keywords and look how dumb their user base got. I still see idiot AOL users who have no freaking clue what a URL is.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[netsharc]

Eh, nowadays people just type what they want in the Google Search bar, remember the Facebook login debacle?

On the other hand, URLs are going back to the AOL keyword origins anyway, look at this domains: http://nyti.ms/, http://flic.kr/, http://youtu.be/ . Yes, they're real. And yes, I hate them.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Pharmboy]

To add to your point, I can tell half the people I know, over the phone, to type in "www.whatever.com" in their address bar, and they don't get it.

No, the address bar, NO, THE ADDRESS BAR. THE TOP BAR. TOP!!! TOP!!! They don't fucking get it, and still say they need to go to google or yahoo to type in an address. My brother (who has a technical job, stringing network and cable tv cabling for the govt. for 20 years) kept telling me my domain didn't work. He was going to google and didn't see it in the listings, instead of just typing it in the address bar.

I'm talking about people who are otherwise, more intelligent than average. Yet AOL has managed to completely teach people what the internet is, in the most wrong fashion possible, so they will never learn properly.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Those AOL users are so dumb they can't even distinguish correlation and causality!

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you call directory assistance if you know the number? Then why do you google when I'm telling you the address?"

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[dnaumov]

Sadly this isn't limited to AOL users. I work as tech support in Finland and I see this daily. Come to think of it, I know what part of UI needs to be dropped - the search bar. That way people would MAYBE eventually learn to type URLs into the address bar and actually go to Google to enter search queries. Alas, this will never happen, because Firefox gets money from Google for people using their search. Ditto for Chrome.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, people being dumb is all AOL's fault.

Try again.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep the address bar hidden on my Mac (with Safari), and wouldn't want it any other way. When I hit Command+L, the address bar appears, and it disappears again automatically when it's no longer needed.

Command+| (pipe-symbol) to hide the address bar

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

(Google) Chrome gets money from Google for using their (own) search? Ok...

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

People are going to have to find another scapegoat for people being dumb. AOL is not the source of that problem. It actually never was.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[foobsr]

look how dumb their user base got

Probably it is good (in contrast to evil) to have a dumb userbase if you are an advertising company.

CC.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[boristhespider]

.......so let them type the address into google and click on the first result. Seriously, is that so hard? Not everyone understands computers -- and many (perhaps the vast bulk, although generally I rarely overestimate the intelligence of any group of people) of them don't understand computers not because they're dumb but because, honestly, they give less than the slightest hint of a shit.

If they get to www.whatever.com by going to Google or Yahoo or Bing and typing it into the search engine, what matter to you? Why do you care? Are you that desperate to scrape together a superiority complex?

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[geekmux]

AOL tried hiding addresses with their keywords and look how dumb their user base got. I still see idiot AOL users who have no freaking clue what a URL is.

You make a good point, but don't think for a second the infamous browser search box hasn't made people idiots too. Far too often when I tell someone a company name, rather than simply adding ".com" to the end of it, they lazily type in the company name into a Google search and let Google do the rest of the work.

...which of course leads to copious amounts of spamvertising from the first 20 (paid) hits on Google...one of them MIGHT actually be the company you're looking for...if you're lucky.

Search boxes. The new AO-Hell keyword.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Spad]

Just wait until ICANN starts rolling out the custom TLDs, it's going to be an anti-phishing nightmare. Did you want p.aypal, pa.ypal, pay.pal, payp.al or paypa.l?

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[boristhespider]

(And if your website isn't in Google's listings.... list it. It's not that hard...)

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[hedwards]

One of the issues I have is that my main computer has 2 monitors, one that's 22" and vertical and another that's 24" and horizontal, a lot of these sorts of stupid changes make it harder for me to use the browser. Such as when Mozilla decided that Firefox shouldn't have a status bar at all.

Personally, I'm fine with them making the default more screen space efficient, but when it gets to the point where they won't let you waste real estate because somebody else doesn't have room, that's in my view a problem. It would be wonderful if instead of this silliness they would focus on things of more broad appeal or at least be sure to allow for an opt out. I mean even MS provided one for some of those stupid UI refresh features in XP.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are you to try to decide how people should go to websites? If they want to type stuff into the search box then let them. Your arrogance in thinking your way is the correct way is endemic in space cadets. Get a life.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[guyminuslife]

And that's probably the reason Google thinks it's a great idea. If you just search instead of using the URL bar, you're feeding their core business.

Hell, I can imagine them going through all the trouble of maintaining the Chrome browser *just for that*. Nobody should use the URL bar again! In 10 years nobody will even remember what it was.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

The AOL keyword origins would be preferred in my opinion. I'm sick of registering domain.com domain.net domain.org domain.info domain.us etc just to secure a TLD - though the keyword will never actually come back despite its nicer appearance because it would make less money, instead we get doma.in and crap...

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[LihTox]

An alternative: tell them to choose "Open Location" from the File menu (it exists by that name in Firefox, Chrome, and Safari on a Mac at least), type the address, and press Return. Maybe finding a menu option will be easier for them than the address bar. (On a Mac, Command-L is the shortcut for those three browsers; presumably it's Control-L on Windows. Don't know about IE or Opera.)

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Ant P.]

GTK+ tried to pull the same thing with the file chooser by putting a "bookmarks" dropdown there and hiding the path box behind an undocumented keyboard shortcut. Thankfully the userbase didn't let them live that one down.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Pentium100]

That would make some sense if the screens were 640x480. The resolution of my monitor is 1600x1200 (I can set it to 1920x1440 if I need more space) and I do not maximize the browser anyway, so I do not see any point in reducing the interface by a few pixels. I like the UI of Firefox 3.6 and Opera 7 (Opera is customizable enough for me to have that interface on the latest version).

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Culture20]

nowadays people just type what they want in the Google Search bar

GOOGLE
Search: [ i want browser URL bar ]
[search] [I'm feeling lucky]

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Culture20]

(Google) Chrome gets money from Google for using their (own) search? Ok...

Probably, yes. Interdepartmental charges help big companies to know which groups help each other and are healthier, etc. I doubt the chrome group was allowed to run a bluff about switching to Bing to strong-arm more money from the search division, but they probably are getting fair market price for the search bar (whatever Mozilla gets).

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[takowl]

Why do you think that people should type in URLs? If you accidentally type in paypall.com instead of paypal.com, you could end up getting your money stolen (in fact, it's a domain squatter - but the risk is there). If you type paypall into Google, you get pointed to paypal. Like IP addresses, URLs are becoming a technical detail that users don't generally think about (except perhaps for sharing links). It's not the end of the world.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea just been dealing with some like that just put a new website for my local car club up and cus they cant find it in msn search it dont work and trying to get them to actually type something in ye gads anyone would think you were asking them to give up their bank details

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[ThunderBird89]

Agreed. I got angry enough when they dropped the http:/// prefix, if the drop the URL bar with no option to return to the old UI, I'm dropping Chrome itself...

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think that people should type in URLs?

Why should people dial all "new" phone numbers at some point? Nobody has tried to fix THAT, and it's too big a problem to just remove the ability to dial phone numbers.

Like IP addresses, URLs are becoming a technical detail that users don't generally think about (except perhaps for sharing links).

Bookmark managers started it, but the URL was still important enough. Whoever created cellphone address books mainstreamed the little brain damage of never wanting to memorize contact information

It's not the end of the world.

It is. For Chrome, that is. Hiding my status bar is one thing, you Firefox devs out there...
and putting tech users (required to originally spread chrome's baby wings) through extra hoops for every single domain typed is not going to go well with those same geeks. We found you, Chrome, because we were already tired of Firefox 3's antics... don't think we can't go somewhere else due to the AOLification of a mostly niche browser that runs alongside, rather than "instead of" all our other browser choices.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know people who have never heard of a browser, they refer to the www as "google" - often it's the first page they have in the browser, and think it runs the whole internet.

Oh, wait a minute...

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Gonoff]

Or if the first one in Google's listing is actually a picture of the login screen where you want to go. This happened to FaceBook recently and huge numbers of starfish told everyone that FB was broken because they couldn't type anything on the login screen...

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[a0me]

Far too often when I tell someone a company name, rather than simply adding ".com" to the end of it, they lazily type in the company name into a Google search and let Google do the rest of the work.

I don't want the address bar to go, but simply adding ".com" to the end of a company name only works for a limited set of companies, in the US. You'll get a better chance at finding a company's website by doing a simple search in Google.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[pclminion]

I'm talking about people who are otherwise, more intelligent than average. Yet AOL has managed to completely teach people what the internet is, in the most wrong fashion possible, so they will never learn properly.

I don't know why some geeks tend to think they're more intelligent than someone else because they can use a complex system. "No, you idiot, you type THESE kinds of strings into THIS field, but you type THOSE kinds of strings into THAT field. Jeez, you moron!" Meanwhile, the "idiot" is sitting there thinking "Why the fuck do they have two fields instead of one field? They both work mostly the same way anyway." Maybe he's smarter than you after all.

It might take a smart person to use a complicated thing. But it requires an even smarter person to simplify it. When you see complexity you ought to work to eliminate it, not bask in your superiority over fellow human beings who are reasonable enough to realize that complexity isn't an end goal.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why Google should modify their search engine to automatically redirect to a site when it detects someone has entered a valid URL. I guess the argument could be made that a user might actually want to do a search on a URL rather than going to the site itself, but it should at the very least ask the user to verify which he wants. If the user types "www.example.com" into Google search (or any search engine, for that matter), the search engine should ask something like:

click here to navigate to www.example.com

click here to continue to search results for www.example.com

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[dryeo]

I like about:life better (only seems to work in SeaMonkey 2.1b2+ though) as it covers Life,the Universe and Everything.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[FoolishOwl]

Bookmark managers started it, but the URL was still important enough. Whoever created cellphone address books mainstreamed the little brain damage of never wanting to memorize contact information

What's the value of memorizing contact information? Contact information is useful only as an intermediate step; it's obviously "technical," and not intrinsically meaningful.

No one wants to call 1-234-567-8910. Someone wants to talk to their friend. The phone number just gets in the way.

Likewise, nobody wants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, they want to look up something on Wikipedia. It's long been notorious that "www" and "com" or "org" or "net" are effectively meaningless noise.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks a lot!
Since I have nothing to do with Facebook I missed all the events that you mentioned about the Facebook login debacle.
Just when I'm thinking "hey, maybe the world isn't populated with total retards" you go and throw that uxmag link in my face.
Reading the comments on the original "Facebook Wants to Be Your One True Login" page is making me nauseous.
Now I just want to cry.
Great!, And now that I'm feeling depressed, I have to type in the word 'crotch' to get this posted. Maybe I won't even bother.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[satuon]

Typing the site name sans the "http://www." and ".com" in Google is actually quicker because the the time it takes to load the Google results and click on the first result is shorter than typing those extra lettters. Plus you get automatic immunity from typo squatters. I doubt calling directory assistance would be quicker.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[jez9999]

Nah,

You can't get too much real estate. Firefox got rid of the status bar - good on them - but that's the tip of the iceberg. Once we've figured out a way to get rid of tabs and navbar, we can start to look at getting rid of the window title. After that, I believe Firefox and Chrome need to start working on getting the real estate larger than the actual monitor. I'm sure it can be done somehow. But it's not goo enough until I can read the whole of War And Peace on one line, damnit!

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[richy freeway]

I have to talk customers through these things on the phone, you tell them to type into the address bar, then you realise they typed it into search, then you realise they've got some stupid custom search malware thing that looks like google but gives you different pages back. So then you have to go through the whole process of getting them to type in the actual address bar. Then you get a typo, or they type in the little search box at the top right.

I would say 95% of my customers don't know what the address bar is.

I hate customers sometimes. Their stupidity astounds me on a daily basis. (if any of you are reading this, I don't really hate you.)

ps. I do.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[jez9999]

Maybe one day we'll need a Firefox extension to restore a sane browser UI. It's already getting a bit that way with FF4. :-(

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Pharmboy]

Why do you think that people should type in URLs?

For the same reason you put an address on an envelope, or dial a phone number. Or type in an email address. Not sure how you can even conclude that NOT typing in the url is a better idea. Fake URLs are exactly how phishing happens, and if people paid more attention to the URL, there would be considerably less of it.

Relying on a search engine to provide you a do-clicky link is not only DANGEROUS (ie: toolbar spam/viruses, as someone pointed out) it is also expensive for businesses, takes more time, and makes it easy for people to fool you into clicking onto an unrelated (and potentially dangerous) website. People should learn about URLs and if they can't understand an URL (how easy a thing to understand, a damn address) then they don't belong on the "information superhighway", just as people who don't understand white and yellow lines, or PRND21 don't need to be on the regular highway.

Of course, it does make Google a shit load of money, which is likely why they are doing it.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[Sigma 7]

Websites within a private LAN or behind a firewall cannot appear on Google.

Depending on the corporation, you might be able to use the search system to find what you're looking for. If not (e.g. it doesn't turn up on the first link, or if said link is obscured by looking less important), you'll have to tell them to enter the URL manually. Half the time, entering the URL causes them to do a Bing search.

And that's not counting Kiosk systems that don't even have an address bar.

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[boristhespider]

yeah i wasn't thinking when i posted any of that. bad news and alcohol combined :(

Re:Okay, I like my screen real estate...

[takowl]

Dialling phone numbers is much less common than it used to be, thanks to electronic address books, skype, and so on. The risks of the internet are better solved by making systems easy to use, not by sitting around and wishing that users were better educated.

The car analogy is just stupid. We make people take a driving test because half a ton of steel at 70 mph can kill a lot of people very quickly without you doing anything obviously stupid. That's not a risk on the internet. My mother doesn't understand a URL, but the internet is still hugely useful to her (email, skype, online shopping, weather forecasts...). It's not your internet, and we're not kicking out 90% of the world when they're using it very productively.

And no, URLs are not "easy to understand". You start at the beginning, then jump into the middle and go backwards for a while, then jump back to the middle and read forwards. The obvious way to read them is left to right, so everything is a subdomain of www. They often contain odd codes ("sid=2004418"?). To properly explain it, you have to talk about servers (for many people, websites aren't on a server, they're just somehow "on the internet"), and static versus dynamic content. And now you can have internationalised domain names in various alphabets. To be fair, some browsers are now making it easier by highlighting the domain name in the URL bar (that is, improving the usability, not berating people for their ignorance).

Yes, Google make money. They provide a service that people use. That's capitalism for you. Wikia tried to make a non-profit search engine, but it didn't work out. I don't particularly like the idea of one company profiting from running such a key function of the web, but I don't think I could do it better...

Lets go phishing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a GREAT way to make phishing attempts easier

Re:Lets go phishing!

[SnoopJeDi]

This struck me as an uncomfortable idea from the getgo, but I didn't realize why for a while until this occurred to me. I would be very uneasy not having the URL I'm visiting available at a glance. TFA suggests this layout would be optional, though.

Re:Lets go phishing!

[fearlezz]

Indeed. Years ago the address bar was even re-introducted on popup windows to make it harder for badguys. I hate that it takes the space, but it is neccesary to protect users. TFA suggests it'll be optional to hide the address bar, I think it's just foolish.

Re:Lets go phishing!

[muindaur]

Along with a good way for Google to get ad revenue from people using the search box.

Re:Lets go phishing!

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not hidden by default, right? More advanced users will hide it, I assume.

Just think of the website

[abhishekupadhya]

and Chrome will fetch it for you through the tubes... It's not like Google hasn't done this before. http://www.google.com/mentalplex/MP_faq.html

...not so bad of an idea...

[Daneurysm]

I've thought about it...and at first I thought it was really dumb and going too far. However, upon further consideration I would certainly enjoy the smidge of screen real estate it would afford me. I would also like the further immersion it could provide to websites without the constant reminder that you are on some site on the internet. I also think that a simple key dedicated to calling the out-of-the-way address bar to attention would be fantastic....like...say...that useless windows key on every keyboard in my house.

Of course I would prefer this be optional and would expect that if I were to hover over a page element I would still get the file name and/or location/url etc.

Though as someone else mentioned I'm a huge fan of Opera because I can make all of this happen already if I want to....and I think that's why it's roughly only me and that guy using Opera.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

IE and FF let you toggle between regular and full-screen mode using the F12 key I believe. What's wrong with that?
I don't care if Chrome removes the URL bar because I don't use it. I only hope FF doesn't follow suit. Some of the latest UI changes in FF have been disappointing.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[calmofthestorm]

I'm already annoyed at how hard it is to get at the menus in Chrome. This is just ridiculous. My screen is 1024x768.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[syousef]

I've thought about it...and at first I thought it was really dumb and going too far. However, upon further consideration I would certainly enjoy the smidge of screen real estate it would afford me.

Learn to hit F11 and leave the STUPID ideas out of my browser.

Thanks.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to hit F11 every time I want to save screen real estate, that's counter-intuitive.

Learn to opinion, thanks.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Patch86]

F11.

On my netbook (small screen, etc.) I just browse in full screen mode most of the time. Mousing to the top edge of the screen brings my tabs and navigation bar into view, pressing F11 instantly brings me back to familiarity.

Obviously not an option if you have an ultra-large widescreen and use everything in windowed mode so you can make good use of your space. But then I don't see the handful of pixels taken up by the URL bar being in THAT much demand if you've got a screen like that.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Daneurysm]

I don't want everything to go away except the web browser, just the address bar.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[fermion]

It seems like this has been tried before, and as others has said it is an option on some browsers. If this were in fact a compelling feature, it would probably already exist.

Safari on iPad has the URL bar goes away when not in use.

The only reason to have the URL off by default is to prevent the user from 'hacking' it. The downside is that it is more difficult to check on phishing attacks. Exposing people to hacking may be something Google is willing to do to force more traffic.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[allo]

i do not get, why everyone is surfing with a maximized browser-window anyway ... learn why the computer allows windows and placing them together or even overlapping!

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[LihTox]

I'm not the OP, but I know that a lot of time I don't want my browser to be full-screen, because I'm working on something else at the same time. And the smaller the window, the more likely I'd be to want a little extra room for the webpage.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[DMUTPeregrine]

On firefox I customize my layout; I have one toolbar, with the following elements:
Menu (file, edit, etc), Fwd/back buttons, reload, stop, home, address bar, search bar.
I use Tree-style tabs (widescreen monitor). I have more usable space this way. I don't know why default installs want everything on their own bars, it does not make sense.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Bing Tsher E]

They started out life running TopView and don't understand the concept of overlapping windows.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want everything to go away except the web browser, just the address bar.

View -> Toolbars -> Customize... Remove URL bar from GUI.

Or to get rid of the whole line so you have more screen space, View -> Toolbars -> Navigation Toolbar.

Maybe now you are starting to appreciate why people like firefox for its flexibility. I'm sure there's even some javascript one-liner you can put in a bookmark to toggle this. With Chrome the GUI looks like how Google wants it to look, and like fast food you only get a couple options.

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can only do one thing at once, though? Unless you need multiple windows on the screen because you're applying one of them to the other, which is much less necessary than only needing one particular window at once in my experience, why not give yourself the maximum size?

Re:...not so bad of an idea...

[LordLimecat]

Er, Chrome is Googles browser. "Your" browser is what you get when you download the chromium source and hit compile.

HTH.

Ummmm, no

[geek]

Sorry but I don't like searching for every single thing when I already know the address. This is just dumb. Far too much emphasis place on searching these days. I rarely need to search anymore as I've been online long enough to basically know where most of the important stuff is.

Just an attempt to generate hits for google here. I dumped Chrome for Firefox the other day for reasons like this. Google controls enough, it's time to take them down a notch. They make some cool stuff but I'm not willing to tie so much into one company.

Re:Ummmm, no

[msobkow]

While I agree that going through a search engine for everything is silly, I do know a couple people who already do exactly that. They never save bookmarks, because it's "easier" to make Google their home page.

Re:Ummmm, no

[retroworks]

Were you the guy interviewed in the "Area Dad Just Wants Computer With The Basics" story I just read? http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-dad-just-wants-computer-with-the-basics,19195/ Same site I read about the Apple laptop sans keyboard http://www.theonion.com/video/apple-introduces-revolutionary-new-laptop-with-no,14299/

Re:Ummmm, no

[shutdown -p now]

They are not talking about removing URL bar, but rather about hiding it when you are reading the page. It would still be accessible.

Re:Ummmm, no

[Sam Douglas]

Or less cynically, an attempt to make Chromium support smaller/more compact displays such as on netbooks where users are less likely to accrue lots of tabs anyway. Combining the navigation buttons and tab list seems like a good way to save a bit of vertical screen space.

I assume there will be a way to bring up a URL entry box in that mode (F6/Ctrl-L).

Recent versions of Chrome hide the scheme from the URI (tech.slashdot.org/story/... rather than http://.../ which makes it easier to see the domain name of the current site at a glance, and they use a different way of showing sites with a valid SSL certificate (it shows the owner of the certificate in a green box, or some serious warning for failed certificates. Looking at the images in TFA, it suggests it may still show the domain somehow for the current tab.

The Android browser approach of making the URI box at the top of the page once it has finished loading is an interesting move; maybe a similar thing would work for showing the domain name.

Re:Ummmm, no

[Sam Douglas]

)

Sorry.

Re:Ummmm, no

[NoZart]

Don't ever do that again.

Re:Ummmm, no

[Anonymous Coward]

All browsers that I know of have always had a shortcut key for opening an URL. I normally use this shortcut instead of having to take my hand off the keyboard.

I'm surprised the address bar lasted this long. It's the only application I can think of that works this way. If I want to open a Word document, I press Ctrl+O — I don't have a address bar where I type in the location of the file I want to edit.

Personally, I think the search bar should go away too.

Re:Ummmm, no

[maxwell demon]

My main use of the address bar is to look at it, and see where I am.
My second most use of the URL bar is top use it for copy/paste of the current URL. There might be some menu option or keyboard shortcut for that, but why bother to search for it?

Re:Ummmm, no

[kevinmenzel]

It would be interesting if they hid the bar once you started scrolling the page... My BlackBerry does something failry similar. I would suggest doing this ONLY on user interaction. So, scroll wheel, or using the keyboard to scroll, or using the scroll bar with a mouse. As in - not scriptable, ever, so that the URL bar ALWAYS appears on the top of a screen, if you click any link and just let the page load. Also, have it appear if you scroll to the top of the page. Knowing the URL of the page you just landed on is useful, but once you start consuming the page, yeah, it isn't so necessary.

Re:Ummmm, no

[awshidahak]

)

There, I got your other one for you.

Re:Ummmm, no

[Sam Douglas]

Thanks. I noticed that one afterwards, but I didn't want to bring it up and potentially lose more nerd-cred over it.

Re:Ummmm, no

[vlueboy]

Sorry but I don't like searching for every single thing when I already know the address. This is just dumb. Far too much emphasis place on searching these days.

Some governments request Google's search data (remember google.ch and google Hong Kong issues last year) to help control and torture their dissidents. This is further removing the ability to cover your tracks since you're now creating additional middleman crumbs (and what BIG crumbs they are at google).

Basically it's enhancing the government's current tracking by putting in the equation google's analytics so the govt can catalogue of all your favorite revolutionary domains and previously hard-to-track "pirate" DNS-less IP addresses.

Re:Ummmm, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, i keep my history saved, so to browse to any of my commonly visited sites i usually just put the first letter or 2 of it in, down and enter. G-gamefaqs gm-gmail, sl-slashdot etc

This would just be obnoxious, good thing i use firefox anyways.

Re:Ummmm, no

[purpledinoz]

Me too, I dumped all those fancy browsers. I prefer to use lynx.

Re:Ummmm, no

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but I don't like searching for every single thing when I already know the address. This is just dumb. Far too much emphasis place on searching these days. I rarely need to search anymore as I've been online long enough to basically know where most of the important stuff is.

Yeah, I do too.. It's on google!

Great Idea

[Haedrian]

We at the National Phishing Association greatly support this suggestion.

Re:Great Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Between the URL bar and the status bar going away, the world is our oyster.

Re:Great Idea

[Mashiki]

So what's the winning catch?
A) Pike
B) Carp
C) Nigerian Scammer, pretending to be the ex-wife of a deceased multi-billionaire -- complete with news story.
D) All of the above.

Same as find

[Anonymous Coward]

Find is already hidden away everywhere, but ctrl-f or / will bring it up as needed. So long as there's a fast way of popping the bar up as needed this should be no different. You don't really need the tabs either, ctrl-[shift-]tab takes care of that, but if you really want ALL the space both IE and Chrome go full-screen with F11. If you want it, it's already there. How much is this mode used?

Maybe this is misinformation

[Anonymous Coward]

in the hope that Microsoft will steal the idea and incorporate it into IE9, making it an annoying browser to IE8 users, instead of leaving the RC as is.

how about..

[Anonymous Coward]

How about making it so the download bar hides itself intelligently? Would save a lot more ui space than the url bar.

Re:how about..

[satuon]

It's been frustrating me as well, having to always close the download bar after a download finishes. But I don't see what could be done, may be a shortcut for closing it?

shooting fish in a barrel, again

[sribe]

it be hidden within tabs

Well, me think that be bad idea.

Just hit F11

[b00m3rang]

If you want your screen wall-to-wall website, just go full screen. It only takes a second to switch back and fourth.

Re:Just hit F11

[jack2000]

Hold F11.

Re:Just hit F11

[b00m3rang]

You're right... it's much less than a second.

Minimalism taken too far

[caywen]

I understand the drive to minimize the UI in popular applications, but there's a point where it is taken too far. When widgets with intuitive functions start to have extra, magic functionality added on in order to get rid of other widgets, that raises a yellow flag with me. A tab, I get. A text box, I get. A combo tab and text box, hmm, I could get used to it, I guess. But taken too far, I can see UI's being without any chrome at all, and interacting with it becomes a mysterious combination of gestures, control keys, and hovering over the right places. I'm not a fan of that.

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Ah this is just paving the way for the next version of chrome - no browser at all! Just sit there and use your imagination.

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[lennier]

When widgets with intuitive functions start to have extra, magic functionality added on in order to get rid of other widgets, that raises a yellow flag with me.

I think you mean 'that adds a tiny black right-pointing arrow to the yellow flag and makes it bounce three times, shade its translucency by two points and extend its drop shadow by 45 degrees. But only if you hover over it for more than three seconds with the Alt key depressed'

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[jack2000]

Googlsd. no wait Googlecstasy...

Only problem with that is ecstasy isn't a hallucinogen. Dang it.

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[Sulphur]

Ah this is just paving the way for the next version of chrome - no browser at all! Just sit there and use your imagination.

This site is best viewed with a browser.

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[gad_zuki!]

This is an excellent point. I love Chrome but the UI has me scatching my head sometimes. One some of my computers there is no bookmarks bar and on others there. To make things worse one of my Chrome installs keeps displaying "For quick access, place your bookmarks here or Import' text. Not sure if that will ever go away. Worse, if I click on "other bookmarks" which really should just be "bookmarks" there is no place to add bookmarks, instead I need to click on the star in the URL box. That's not intuitive for Joe and Jane computer user.

Now try using it with remote desktop and the RDP bar covers the title bar. Its just annoying. Yes, I can work around it, but its still a bad design decision. Title bars shouldn't be used in this way. Heck Im not even certain why the tab length on top is so short. I need to mouse over to see the entire title.

I would love to see it default to a Firefox-like classic mode and leave a minamalist option for those who want it. I'm still not sure why they removed the http from the URL box. Now its difficult for support people to ask end users "Are you visiting the http or https version." Instead they now need to ask what browser you are using because Chrome broke a very basic UI.

I'm not sure what Google's plan is here. Chrome feels like this browser run by two departments. The guys interested in building a secure and fast browser and guys interested in fucking up the UI to make it as hostile as possible in some attempt to achieve some minimalist nirvana.

I suspect a lot of people, myself included, will just go back to FF once the UI guys finally fuck it up for good. Shame really, technically its a great browser and sandoxing flash/pdf and a process per tab are great ideas.

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[Fromm Kormak]

I totally agree. URL bar is very useful because there are bookmarks tab, icons of extensions(10), icon of Ireader, adblock and rss are, of course, there too. So i do not want to lose it for additional 1 inch free space!!

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[jez9999]

But taken too far, I can see UI's being without any chrome at all

Chrome with no chrome? The irony...

Re:Minimalism taken too far

[superyooser]

First the status bar. Now the location bar!!

If Google made cars...

• Combine all dashboard widgets (speedometer, tachometer, fuel gauge, etc.) into one toolbar, which doesn't fully show anything, to maximize windshield real estate.
• Hide the steering wheel to free up yet more precious window pixels currently being blocked by its top arc.
• Eliminate sun visors since some users use them to block part of the windshield.

Mozilla already experimenting on this

[bmuon]

Mozilla already has a Labs project that goes even further by hiding ALL the UI and showing it only on demand. It's called Home Dash.

Re:Mozilla already experimenting on this

[bjartur]

So does surf, but using Webkit and integrating with your window manager - allowing you to group windows from different applications together.

Re:Mozilla already experimenting on this

[jez9999]

And it used to be called 'Fullscreen'.

Don't be idiots.

[TafBang]

It's not going to slow anything down... every time a new tab comes up you will be already set to type an address, so your excuses are invalid. I believe it will be more sleek and it says it will help with the processing and of course it will have a sleek eye candy look. I have every site bookmarked and rarely use my URL Bar. I'm usually linked to things or everything is a click away.

Re:Don't be idiots.

[jack2000]

Fullscreen mode called, it wants its functionality back.

F11 kids, use it!

They already removed too much

[Yvan256]

Their short status bar which hides long links already annoys me enough not to use their browser.

Re:They already removed too much

[awshidahak]

Their short status bar which hides long links already annoys me enough not to use their browser

Sadly, Firefox 4 (at least in the latest beta) has completely removed the status bar and links just partially appear in the url bar too. This also means no long links in Firefox in the near future too.

Re:They already removed too much

[ThunderBird89]

Actually, if you leave the mouse on the link for a second, the full address pops out in the status bar.

Re:They already removed too much

[Yvan256]

Slowing my UI is not helping me. I'd rather be able to switch it on completely with full adresses like other browsers.

There's something about cutting out too much, you end up with an interface that starts going backward in terms of being useful to the user.

url bar and https

[pinkishpunk]

Now we have spend years telling people to look at the url for https, to look there if the bar is green fro those extented certificates things, and now they want to do away with it.

Oh and that window that just totally locks up your browers, naa you dont want to know that url anyway, you are smart enough use another brower to get that.

Re:url bar and https

[jimpop]

Telling them to look at the URL bar for https was just wrong, imho. You should have been telling them to look at the status bar padlock.

On the topic of determining phishing urls.... use the status bar before (pre) you click a link, don't use the url bar after (post) you've clicked the phishing link. O.o

Re:url bar and https

[pinkishpunk]

to do it right one would have to say look at the certificate, https:/// was good enough to tell peopel not so much into computers, and it was always at the top, where as the padlock wasnt always in the same place.

People need to know how the sausage is made

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo. The last thing the world/society/internet/economy need(s) is for another so-called convenience that actually just obscures for the tech illiterate the reality of what they are doing. People already can't tell the difference (functionally) between the address bar and the quicksearch bar, or whatever other space they careen through onto the web. Unfortunately, ignorance leads to suffering, financial or otherwise, as a result of scams, social engineering, and misinformation, deliberate or otherwise.

Not in my config either

[skywatcher2501]

In my Firefox configuration there's only the window bar and scrollbar, and if there's more than one tab open, also the tab bar. If I need to put in some specific url, i use cmd+L (on mac), for many other things I use Ubiquity as a highly functional CLI for the browser. And yes when I'm doing financial stuff i reactivate it for certificate info and such.

Re:Not in my config either

[bjartur]

I prefer sharing the title bar, and showing it only on demand. Having both a tab bar and a separate window bar seem pointless.

Authenticity can be displayed by coloring the scrollbar

Re:Not in my config either

[maxwell demon]

What exactly is the title bar? The title part of the window decorations? That one I don't want removed because it has program independent functionality (and I hate it if programs take that away from me; with the exception of some very specialized widgets where you'd not use that functionality anyway).

Re:first

[AK Marc]

First, you don't need to sign your posts "bitch." From the fact you were looking for FP, we already knew you were.

Also, even with a FP, you could at least say something just as inane but a little more on topic, like:

Instead of showing the URL bar all the time, it be hidden within tabs.

"It be hidden? What do we pay the editors for? It is hidden, or it would be hidden or something. Come on, don't we have anyone here who hasn't outsourced their job to Elbonia?"

But thanks for trying. It was a half-assed job that I wouldn't be proud of, but if that's all you have, then frame it and show it to your mother every time she comes into the basement to refill your Cheetos.

Method in Google 'madness' ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google will be hoping to default you too their search engine to type urls then yep as Google does best log it all for statistical purposes to further their own world domination haha! :D

No options.

[Beelzebud]

They really need to make Chrome more customizable. I like my browser set up the way I want it. I can do that with Firefox and Opera without any problems. However at this point you can customize IE more than Chrome. I wanted a simple button next to my address bar that gave a drop down bookmarks menu, and there doesn't seem to be any way to properly do that in Chrome, and the addons I've tried all end up trying to be way too fancy, and just don't do a simple drop down bookmarks menu like Firefox.

Between the lack of customizable options, and my paranoia about Google's privacy policies, I have just totally avoided trying to get used to Chrome.

Re:No options.

[Darkness404]

Exactly. The lack of customization is the one thing keeping me away from using Chrome (or one of Chrome's alternate builds). Heck, IE 6 had more customization than Chrome offers. And it isn't even UI issues, Chrome seems to think that there should be no history options between save and log absolutely everything and super paranoid no cookies, no logs, no cache, mode. And don't even get me started on all the about:config Firefox tweaks that are unavailable in Chrome...

Look, if Google wants to keep their minimalistic look and feel thats fine. Just let us have the ability to customize it as much if not more than Firefox. Until that happens or Firefox truly becomes unusable, I'm sticking with it.

Re:No options.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nnancliccjabjjmipbpjkfbijifaainp -- something I found simply by searching for "Bookmark Button" in the Google Chrome Extensions site?...oh god that's SOOOO hard to find.

Re:No options.

[Anonymous Coward]

Type this in your url bar : chrome://bookmarks

Bookmark the page, and tap ctrl+b to get the bookmark bar to appear, if it's hidden. If you've saved all your bookmarks to the bookmark bar instead of organizing them, you can rearrange them from the chrome://bookmarks page (just drag and drop to change the order) so that the bookmarks... er... bookmark is the first entry.

Basically you can just use ctrl+b to bring the bar into play and click the first item, or leave the bookmarks page open as the first tab (right click the tab's title and pin it so it takes up less space) and hit ctrl+1 to flip to it.

Granted, neither of these options are exactly what you asked for, but they're pretty close until someone can bap google over the head for a direct bm button.

Bad idea

[zlogic]

How are you going to determine that the website is youbank.com/creditcards and not yourbank.com.cr/editcards? For some cases the usual SSL padlock icon is not enough - some websites (e.g. Twitter) have no encryption and some sites have self-signed certificates.

It'll be interesting to see

[Aerorae]

Just how many people love it, and how many people will scream bloody murder to stop it

Re:It'll be interesting to see

[hedwards]

Depends if it's default, optional or mandatory. If it doesn't effect anybody by default, then it's not likely to annoy anybody, but if it's mandatory, that's where you're going to get people upset. I know that Mozilla's been doing some really dumb stuff with the UI lately as well. At least this way I don't have to worry about switching to chrome.

Give it a try

[Clsid]

I believe it's a good idea and frankly I'm surprised with all the conservative comments to preserve the status quo. Even if you don't like it, give it a try and we'll see. There were some things in the past that I flat out refused on paper, but when you get to experience it everyday, changes your perception a lot. The iPhone did this in my case. I'll look forward to try this new Chrome feature.

Re:Give it a try

[hedwards]

15 years ago, this would have been a handy feature, now I've got a 24" monitor for my main screen. And even smaller screens are getting harder to find that don't show at least 1280x1024. The time for this sort of change was a long time ago, at this point this sort of thing just serves to annoy people. I can get it when they make it optional or even default, but when they do this it just makes the UI that much harder to learn and work with.

Phishbait

[TheSHAD0W]

This is going to make phishing fraud worse, when people don't realize they aren't on the website they think they are.

I have seen this before

[ad.linux]

I'm posting from my android device and my browser (dolphin) is some what like that. I know it would have to be adapted to make it work in an desktop browser, but it may work. Let's wait and see.

No reason

[benmarvin]

It's understandable on a mobile browser where screen real estate is a premium that the URL bar disappears unless you're actively typing an address. On the desktop (or laptop) browser, it's not really necessary. If you're that hard up for a few hundred more pixel of space, just use Full-Screen mode in Chrome.

As it is supposed to be

[FranTaylor]

Finally after all these years the browser is feature complete!

URLs were never meant to be part of the user interface. They were always meant to be hidden. Look at them. Do you really think they were designed to be typed by humans? For further proof, read the historical notes from the w3c archives.

Re:As it is supposed to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, I'd love to. What's the URL?

Re:As it is supposed to be

[geek]

Yes, they were designed to be typed by humans. That's why we have DNS, otherwise we would just use the friggin numbers.

Re:As it is supposed to be

[Junta]

I don't disagree that URLs are intended to be human-entry friendly (though probably more due to phishing which was probably not anticipated), but DNS allows more than just humans reading and typing the right thing.

For example, an application can dictate server by DNS and the application provider can renumber due to provider change or whatever without disrupting connectivity.

Re:As it is supposed to be

[Anonymous Coward]

if we don't have an address bar, how are we going to get somewhere ? And to Chrome and other browsers... Stop raping my browse expierience ! I don't need more space in my browse window. I WANT A GODDAMN BROWSER THAT DOES WHAT I WANT !!!!!!

Re:As it is supposed to be

[lennier]

URLs were never meant to be part of the user interface. They were always meant to be hidden.

Thank you sincerely, good sir! I, former dictator Mbuto Kibale from the First National Bank of Paaypaal.com.biz.info extend my heartiest congratulations on your upcoming purchases of V1c0d1n, c1al1s and Super Happy Virus Blocker 2012 Extreme.

We like the way you think. Come to our website, something something something dot you don't need to know who we are dot never you mind your pretty head and... oh, forget it, just friend us on Facebook and download our App.

Re:As it is supposed to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, any sort of security from malicious hijinks (e.g. phishing) was never intended. I would say these are both cases the planners being somewhere between naive and just plain wrong.

Looking at them, they remind me of UNIX paths, which are very much meant to be notionally typed by the user, although a shell may offer some assistance with that typing by way of in completion, globbing, and history expansion.

So why in blazes shouldn't URLs be typed by the user, again with UA assistance in completion or history? Unless you think UNIX is for turbonerds and real people should use MacOS or Windows so they don't have to type -- with that worldview, I suppose I understand why you'd want a shiny, crippled browser for your shiny, crippled OS.

Re:As it is supposed to be

[awshidahak]

A link to one of these documents would be nice. It would also help to prove your point.

Re:As it is supposed to be

[jones_supa]

But these days there's lots of obscure CGI URLs with long hashes and things like that. Not human-readable or -writable any more.

i wish

[bball99]

google would kill the insipid Home tab on the iGoogle page - or at least give users the option to do so

I hear they're removing keyboards from the CR-48 t

[elashish14]

I hear they're removing keyboards from the CR-48 too and replacing it with a giant wheel.

Sometimes less is less

[unil_1005]

less === less

less != les

Safari on iPhone does it pretty good

[AmazinglySmooth]

I like the way Safari on iPhone does it. The URL attaches to the top of the page and slides out of view when you scroll.

Console Browser "links" already does that

[Anonymous Coward]

No URL-Bar. Just type "g" for "Go to" and you can enter another address.

Yo, we heard you like window managers

[Anonymous Coward]

So we put a window manager in your browser >_

Epiphany

[afranke]

Epiphany (GNOME browser) already offers to hide address bar.

lynx?

[jd142]

So basically google is making a version of lynx that will show pictures and text formatting? Oh, wait, even lynx has a basic interface that makes it, what's that word...useful. That's it. Chrome is already too minimal for my tastes. It's ok to have a few buttons up there. Honest.

What's funny is that we're seeing a reverse in computing ability. I remember back when a 14" monitor was standard. When we got those 17" crts(15.75" viewable) we marveled at the screen real estate. Now at work we have either dual 19" or dual 21" monitors. But the trend actually seems to be towards smaller screens. At our school, 99% of the students have laptops or netbooks with the same physical screen size as the crt monitors we trashed almost a decade ago. If you asked us in 2001 if we'd give up a 22" widescreen for a 14" or even 10" screen we'd have laughed you out of the building.

Just give in and make a tablet/netbook version of chrome and a full featured, full interface version for desktops and laptops.

Re:lynx?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and also spare a thought for us poor sods using dual or triple 30" monitors.

Re:lynx?

[CAIMLAS]

Size isn't everything in a display. Most of these newer displays are tinnnnny on the vertical resolution. That's as big a thing to me as overall size, personally.

Re:lynx?

[LordLimecat]

Yes, well, we all know how lynx is eating Chrome's lunch.

Re:lynx?

[Nimey]

Eh, lynx will hide the address bar always, until you press "g".

Maybe someone will make a Chrome extension that'll give it lynx keybindings and navigation. I think that'd actually be useful.

Re:lynx?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except those students are using laptops, not desktop machines with 14 or 10 inch screens, which wouldn't have been all that much of a howler then or now. Well, except for the part about laptop screens sucking complete ass back then, but that was regardless of size.

Re:lynx?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you'd asked me in 2001 if I'd trade a 22" screen for the ability to do non-work related computing while sitting outside, I'd have punched a hobo to make it happen.

Just stop it already

[rudy_wayne]

Mozilla and Google both seem to be on a crusade to completely fuck up their browsers and make them as shitty and useless as possible. I just don't get their mindset of constantly changing things, removing things, adding things, not to make them better, but to simply make them different. It makes sense for commercial products, whether it's Windows, automobiles or toothpaste, where you have to constantly get people to buy the latest version of your product in order to maintain your revenue stream. But for a product that is given away for free, it makes no sense.

Re:Just stop it already

[AmazinglySmooth]

You can always use IE instead...

Re:Just stop it already

[LordLimecat]

What on earth are you talking about? Improving web standards support, improving JS execution many times over, adding 2d hardware acceleration, adding support for html5 video, improving support for extensions (including actual honest-to-goodness adblocker support in chrome), and built-in pdf support (based on foxit i believe)....

None of those are "making things better"? What on earth are you looking for? The last several versions of firefox and chrome have been repeatedly better than prior versions in speed and functionality. And for whatever reason, their market share continues to rise, so claiming "it makes no sense" seems rather disingenuous to me.

Chrome vs Firefox

[syousef]

Is it just me or are Google and Mozilla having a contest to see who can take their nice shiny browser and make the worst stinking piece of foul excrement possible in as few releases as possible? It's a fight to the bottom, i swear!

Re:Chrome vs Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when they change things just to change them. Or when they remove buttons that they don't think people use. If you look at their study All of the buttons have at least some use. In addition, the way they swap the tabs with the other parts of the interface makes no sense to people, especially me. I get what they say about how the tabs determines what the other buttons do, but guess what, the way the interface is arranged now (Title bar, menus, navigation, bookmarks, tabs, the actual page) is arranged the way most people use them from the bottom up (at least the people I meet).

(obligatory car analogy) It is easier to change the paint job than it is to change the things under the hood.

Re:first

[flappinbooger]

how about "I accidentally the url bar"

Ponies?!

[Torodung]

If you look at the diagram in TFA, you'll see that the "URL tab" reads, google.com/ponies.

As a Slashdot reader, I therefore cannot take this article seriously.

Re:Ponies?!

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably figured they were safe since no true Slashdot reader would ever RTFA.

Welcome to

[airfoobar]

paypal.c.om

one step further towards media consumption only

[grapeape]

Anyone else find this disturbing, while I know there is a push to merge the web with one way media consumption like radio and tv but this is a bit much IMHO. No it wont hurt those that know better and have some tech savvy but for the masses its basically going to cause people to be led around the internet by the nose. I really dont want to see the internet become a corporate main street while the rest of things get relegated to red light districts and dark alleyways.

Maybe I need a foil hat but it just seems like ideas like the push to get a convergence device is more a push to get rid of the riff-raff (aka indie, amateur and non commercial) content on the internet, its as if the major media groups have recognized they are loosing control of their particular money trains and there is collusion between conglomerates of the past and the conglomerates of today to reduce the risk of the web allowing an equal presence.

Re:one step further towards media consumption only

[McTickles]

I have been seeing this coming since say 2000, with the very nature of most home connections being ADSL, thus it favors one way communication by design to limit your own hosting/contribution possibilities.

I thought this was going to get better with fiber but no it seems in alot of places the same inane ADSL down/up bandwidth ratios apply to fiber... I don't quite see the technical reason for it but whatever...

SDSL connections are kept very expensive for that reason. Would it be much trouble for the ISP to allow you to pick when you subscribe to an ADSL line? How much up bandwidth do you want? etc...

I am quite tired of the current "everything in the browser" culture. People come to expect the internet to be confined to the web browser window and anything that isn't web based is ignored or seen as obsolete. Eventually people will be unaware of the true nature of the internet and only ports 80 and 443 will work; and also, in the long run web sites will have to be "certified" by governments or risk being black listed.

The internet is right now on a slippery slope to becoming a mall and "authorized/legal" media delivery service.

Jean Michel Jarre (who i do not particularly like) did say recently that eventually people who know better will flee the internet because it will become too P.C, normalized, censored.

Seems like such a waste.

Re:one step further towards media consumption only

[Anonymous Coward]

This is natural in any industry. We went through a fun wild west time period on the net, but there are many powerful folk who don't like the freedom we all enjoy on the web. They want to monetize everything. That's what happens when you have a corporate structure that rewards bean counting rather than research and innovation.

Personally I believe we'll see a model kinda like second life. You'll get the main areas where most ppl congregate that are tightly controlled, and then more obscure outlying regions with less users. It's sad but tv and radio has gone through a similar evolution so it's not terribly surprising.

Re:one step further towards media consumption only

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right governments and corporations are taking over. The Internet isn't a hobby/geek/tech thing anymore. We dont use dialup, BBS or direct to others individually anymore.

The only thing left now is your own network in your house, community wireless (802.11 WiFi) networks and ham/CB radio.

Tin foil hat FTW.

Re:I hear they're removing keyboards from the CR-4

[imroy]

Obligatory video from The Onion: Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard.

Re:first

[Grishnakh]

Instead of showing the URL bar all the time, it be hidden within tabs.

Arrr! There be nothing wrong with this style of writing, matey!

from someone who'd prefer status bar over url bar

[tkprit]

I have really gotten used to the way the status bar appears/disappears ON the website page; I didn't think I'd ever trust a browser that didn't have a static status bar to let me know exactly what was going on all the time, but the Chrome status bar is a winner imo.

I'm thinking the auto-show URL bar could work, esp if they incorporate it as a ghost image on the webpage like they do the status bar. (And if they completely FUBAR the thing, I imagine it wouldn't take long to get an extension that brings back the URL bar).

I'm just wondering where they'll cram the tool menu and the extensions that fit on the URL bar. I really like the translate tool within easy reach, and mail, voice, etc. Wonder if they'd auto-show w/ the URL bar when you get a push notification?

Can't you tell pirate-talk when you see it?

[denzacar]

Come on, don't we have anyone here who hasn't outsourced their job to Elbonia?"

He's obviously an ex-pirate from Somalia, you insensitive clod.

I for one find it commendable that he gave up such a profitable yer risky profession of robbing people at RPG-point, to become a Slashdot editor.
I say we welcome him with open ar... Oh, wait... my bad. It's samzenpus. Nah... he doesn't outsource to Elbonia.

That's his high-quality work actually. Or low-effort work... depending how you look at it.
At least this time he didn't present "Google May Kill Chrome URL Bar" as "Google Executives Caught While Planning Murder!".

Re:Can't you tell pirate-talk when you see it?

[meerling]

I for one find it commendable that he gave up such a profitable yer risky profession of robbing people at RPG-point, to become a Slashdot editor.
</quote>

So what RPG do you intend to use? If it's D&D you could crush them under tons of editions and sourcebooks. Though something like Dragon Age from Green Ronin would be considered more 'cutting edge'. :)

(To those that don't get the joke, I'm playing off the use of undefined TLAs.) (Just like TLA.)

Re:Can't you tell pirate-talk when you see it?

[denzacar]

(To those that don't get the joke, I'm playing off the use of undefined TLAs.) (Just like TLA.)

I for one welcome our Theatre of Living Arts representative.

So what RPG do you intend to use?)

Me? I'm not planing on using anything. We were talking about the Elbonian/Somalian ex-pirate that turned out to be Slashdot editor known as samzenpus.
And I guess that, had he been a Somalian he would have used whatever is available for the lowest price.

mod up, must read FUNNY!

[tkprit]

LOL! And for me these are people who didn't even have computers when AOL was out, but I guess the walmart specials come pre-loaded with crap start pages that are like AOL. And so you TEACH them what the effin addy bar is, even what URL stands for and how they can oooooh type in an IP number instead of domain name, and "they get it!"... but a week later they're STILL typing a URL into an "Ask toolbar" which came "for free".

Start pages should be BANNED.

Re:mod up, must read FUNNY!

[jack2000]

About:blank all the way.

Re:mod up, must read FUNNY!

[dryeo]

I like about:life better (only seems to work in SeaMonkey 2.1b2+ though)

Re:mod up, must read FUNNY!

[jones_supa]

I like about:life better (only seems to work in SeaMonkey 2.1b2+ though)

What's that?

Re:mod up, must read FUNNY!

[boxwood]

I always liked about:robots the best.

Re:mod up, must read FUNNY!

[dryeo]

42

2-character URL field

[CrowdedBrainzzzsand9]

Leave a tiny URL field, a character or two. If someone types in it, pop up a full URL field. Best of both worlds, if you don't detest javascript.

WTF... Do you know the Nokia N900 browser?...

[Anonymous Coward]

MicroB in Nokia N900 does this for more than a year.

This is why I can't stand Chrome

[Red_Chaos1]

I will admit I haven't spent a lot of time with it, but then I figure if I can't get things working in a fashion I want in a few minutes with little to no hunting, then it isn't for me anyway. I already hate that by default I cannot find the fucking bookmarks on Chrome. Sorry, but I like how it's set up in Firefox, which is how it was on Mozilla, which is how it was on Netscape. I'm used to it, and I *like* it that way. Stop trying to force me to use some other retarded way (/me looks at MSO "Ribbon").

Now I can see the usefulness of the new URL bar on tabs, mainly because wider screens don't really help for websites and the like, but I can still see that being a nuisance for some/many. Firefox gets as minimal as I need it to. Small icons with no text, URL bar to the tight of those icons, and the row of tabs. I don't need it any leaner. If I need more, I hit the magic F11 key a voila! I have yet more screen space.

Follow the money

[sjdude]

One thing is for sure: If they drop the URL bar, it will increase the use of search and, thus, increase the click through to ad-words sites. Nothing like a pretty fucking obvious money-making move on their part, eh?

Fallacy of software changes..

[Junta]

I would say it makes no *rational* sense for anything to change merely for the sake of changing even if it is commercial sofrtware.

There is a perception issue that if you have no plans to fiddle with software in a user-visible way then your project is stagnant and being 'abandoned'. You are never allowed to think you got it right (admittedly getting it 'right' is rare and highly subjective).

Logging in to google on 2 accounts at same time

[REALMAN]

We can already log into 2 different accounts so long as each login is in a different browser window. I use Firefox to log into one account while I log into another in Internet Explorer.

Solution in need of a Problem?

[Bloodwine77]

Honestly, has anybody actually said, "Man I wish I could browse the internet without the URL bar!"? I wasn't happy when Chrome decided to drop the "http://" from the URLs in the URL bar. Perhaps I am a bit OCD, but I like having the protocol specified in the URL. Most browsers don't require you to enter "http://" and assume you mean "http://" if you omit it, but they always display it. I can see a future where we use more protocols for different media and data and the last thing we need to do is to remove the notion of protocols from people's mentalities. The removal of the URL bar is a step too far in dumbing-down the interface. In this day and age of phishing attacks and other scam-related shenanigans, I'd like to see a clear and visible readout of what site I am browsing or what data I am accessing. I know a lot of end-users aren't the brightest bunch, but this is dumbing-down things too far and reeks of a solution in search of a problem ... or is a solution to condition us for some long-term plan Google has to wall us off in their garden. Thankfully we still have Firefox and Opera as choices and both of those browsers allow customization. Google doesn't seem too keen on allowing customization in Chrome.

That's why I hate Chrome

[Snaller]

They keep removing stuff I want in my browser, that and I can't read half the sizes because the Google Zealots refuse to allow you to make the fonts bigger. That makes it a crap browser.

Re:That's why I hate Chrome

[rudy_wayne]

They keep removing stuff I want in my browser, that and I can't read half the sizes because the Google Zealots refuse to allow you to make the fonts bigger. That makes it a crap browser.

Actually you can. At least in the current beta of Chrome 11. Options -> Under the hood -> Web Content -> Customize Fonts

This was one of the big things keeping me from using Chrome.

This already exists in Chrome / FF / IE: press F11

[IYagami]

Make the full page view as default in the browser, and only show the url bar when the user creates a new tab or when the mouse pointer is at the top of the page

Just make it optional, you bastards!

[Dr. Spork]

I can't use Chrome, because I hate tabs and I want my window management to be handled consistently. Mozilla loves tabs too, but unlike Chrome, they give me the option to easily turn off the features I don't want to use. I can already use Firefox without a URL bar. But the point is, it's left up to me. As long as Chrome doesn't respect my well-justified and not unusual choices, I'll not even consider trying it.

Re:Just make it optional, you bastards!

[McTickles]

I was considering switching to Chrome for speed but two things put me off, apparently Google likes to decide what is best for you...

- Can't delete cache/history when closing.
- Blocked ports (WTF!) requiring a command line option to unblock.

Re:Just make it optional, you bastards!

[LordLimecat]

Why are they going to respect your (niche) choices over the majority of their users? Doing so would seem irresponsible to their users, IMHO.

Not wanting tabs in THE browser that claims to be designed around tabs? You might as well complain to Tesla Motors that their latest Roadster doesnt have a gasoline option, and that they need to respect your choices.

The Top 10 Search Terms of 2010...

[earls]

Say it all: http://www.google.com/insights/search/#geo=US&date=1%2F2010%2012m&cmpt=q

Re:The Top 10 Search Terms of 2010...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this makes sense. I use a lot of school computers and don't have bookmarks or autocomplete via history or whatever, so if I want to go someplace (in FF, since that's on these by default) I usually just put it in the address bar as "facebook" or "omim" or "slashdot" etc., trusting that FF will consult Google and send me where I want to be.

Download bar?

[thetoadwarrior]

If they're so worried about space then why do they insist on the big ass download bar to remind you what you have downloaded? That should go before anything else.

Please make this optional.

[The Fanta Menace]

I want the url bar. Making drastic interface changes without giving the user an option to accept them smacks of GNOME-style arsehattery.

Hmmm... F11, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

When I find the need to free up more screen estate, I press F11, and voila - more screen estate (in Firefox).Whats wrong with that solution?

Hidden Address Bar?

[Grail]

I have hidden the address bar on my browsers for many years. Command+L to reveal it so I can type in a new location, or Command+Space, search term, tab, "Bing" and off we go to the search results...

Not so bad for productivity

[Hermanas]

Thinking about how I use a browser (Chrome) tells me that removing the URL bar is not at all such a bad idea. 99% of the time when I want to go to a new page, I press Ctrl+t to open a new tab, and then the URL bar is already focused so I just start typing. I assume this will remain the same. The other 1%, when I do happen to want to load a page in the same tab, I just press Ctrl+k to focus the URL bar. I realize this makes me more of a power user than the average user, so it should definitely be optional, but it would increase my screen real estate without sacrificing productivity. As for phishing... that would most certainly be a concern. Imagine receiving a friend request from (what is assumed to be) Facebook via email, unsuspectingly clicking the link to go to that page, filling in my details, etc. etc. Only people like us would be looking at the URL in a situation like that in the first place, and now even we will be clueless, unless we go out of our way to verify the current URL.

Re:first

[Culture20]

"It be hidden? What do we pay the editors for? It is hidden, or it would be hidden or something. Come on, don't we have anyone here who hasn't outsourced their job to Elbonia?"

Elbonics is a legitimate dialect of English. You're racist if you disagree.

Those that want it

[ThisIsForReal]

already press F11. No need to make it a default.

Next step

[Arancaytar]

Eliminate the entire window. The browser will run orders of magnitude faster, decrease its memory footprint drastically, and take up absolutely no screen space at all.

who else sees a trend here

[FudRucker]

firefox, chrome, opera, even though they all have their own goals as a browser they all have done one thing in common = take a perfectly good idea for a webbrowser and fuck it all up

I'll Go Back to Firefox If They Do That

[Zamphatta]

I would hate to surf the net without being able to see what URL I'm currently at. I'll go back to using Firefox if I have to. I need to see where I am. My personal feelings aside.... If they remove the URL bar and have that as the default, how am I supposed to recommend Chrome to people who know little about internet security? It just wouldn't be good for anyone but phishers. I'm a web developer -- I can't be helping people mess themselves.

Vertical Screen Estate

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely enjoy browsing without URL bar,
using +L or +L for entering URLs and
having more vertical space for actual content.

  although i'm quite used to it, the trend
to even more widescreen displays (almost no more 4:3 displays and laptops)
annoys me.

it's something that phones and tablets get right through their formfactor.

Multiple Logins

[Gonzoisme]

Chrome already allows for multiple gmail logins: it's called incognito mode. I assured my girlfriend that's exclusively what I use it for.

Long links statusbar

[Anonymous Coward]

> Their short status bar which hides long links already annoys me enough not to use their browser.

If you wait one more second the statusbar will expand to the full url. Please keep your list of annoyances up to date. It isn't WinXP, where something you hated 10 years ago probably still is wrong.

I already log into 2 accounts in different windows

[atari2600a]

google-chrome --user-data-dir='./.gapps'

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole URL bar?

Safari on iPhone

[Coppit]

I like what Safari on iPhone does... The URL bar is at the top of the page, so when you scroll down it scrolls off the top. That seems like a good compromise.

It's a Cycle

[Anonymous Coward]

Like cloud computing and other ideas which are basically recycled from decades before, the future is to go back to old concepts. In fact, you could say that WordPerfect for DOS did work with "a mysterious combination of gestures, control keys, and hovering over the right places."

Yet another reason to stick with FF.

[Lord Kano]

I hate Chrome's lack of a menu bar. I won't use that broken UI, getting rid of the URL bar is just another pain in the ass reason to not use that shitbox browser.

Mod away fanbois, I have the karma.

LK

"Don't make me think"

[Waccoon]

First, they took away bookmarks. Then, they took away the menu bar. Then, they took away the status bar. Then, they took away the URL bar. Are they just going to continue taking things away for my own good? As a web developer, I find Chrome infuriating, and I'm not the least bit happy that Firefox is following in these footsteps. If you want to survive on the Internet, there are simply things you MUST know. That's why these bars exist, damn it. Why is anyone in this thread finding ways to justify this behavior? I thought this was the land of the geeks and the purveyors of freedom. Why would anyone justify taking away a feature that's been around for over a decade and actually works?

Re:"Don't make me think"

[Anonymous Coward]

Obvious troll is obvious. Chrome still has bookmarks.

Re:"Don't make me think"

[tokul]

If you want to survive on the Internet,

It's google. They don't want you to survive on the internet. They want you to survive on googlenet.

caution

[Anonymous Coward]

its fine if they make it an option to enable the feature. But here is the caution against making this default. My mom called me just a couple of days ago freaking out as she had accidentally removed the url bar from safari. (it even asks if you are sure..she clicked yes naturally)

People use the url bar. it is one of the few engrained features that they know to look for.

Re:first

[flappinbooger]

That's what I said, I accidentally the URL bar! What should I do?

F11

[johncandale]

Isn't that what F11 is for in firefox? Or just give the user the option. It's a mere UI issue, not like a below the hood engine thing, is it so hard to support two choices in this example?

Chrome is a browser for amateurs.

[Gnu Zealand]

Dear Firefox. Don't worry, Chrome is a browser for amateurs. If you're looking for more real estate up top, I'd be quite happy with the address going in the status bar. The status bar that I had to put back in, thanks to the last improvement. I'd actually like the extra real estate. Right now I've got my address bar in with tabs, and it gets squashed to useless. There's still plenty of space in the status -- sorry -- 'add-on' bar. Thanks.

getting tired of this

[CAIMLAS]

I'm getting really tired of this. In the past 11 years, I have used all of the major browsers exclusively/predominantly for some period of time - IE7, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chromium/Chrome. Why? Because:

* The 'mainstay' refuses/fails to innovate.
* The 'mainstay' gets slow and ineffectual feature creep resulting in horrendous bloat.
* The 'mainstay' ops for features over performance improvements (which helped drive me to their browser in the first place).

Does Google really think they've got such a stranglehold on the browser market that they can just remove such an integral part of the browser? When I'm browsing, it's often that I don't even use the mouse - I can navigate just as quickly/quicker within most sites with the 'autofocus' and keyboard browser shortcuts.

Google did a pretty good thing, IMO, in removing a couple of the browser 'artifacts'. Tabs, and address bar - those are really all you need. Anything else really is obstructive (especially on these newer vertically-limited screens). Same for the title bar, for all intents and purposes (you still have the taskbar and tag's label, which is usually good enough). But, doing away without the address bar? I use the URL in the address bar to tell where I am, as well as hotkey (ctl-L) to it frequently. It's a quasi-search (it's rare that i type in a 'new' URL anymore, just use the autocomplete from history).

I know that when I'm in 'fullscreen' mode, it starts to feel a bit confining and claustrophobic. I think they might be able to 'make it work' (sorta like the 'find' dialog pops up in a small area on the top right and then disappears - a behavior I'm not too fond of, personally). Hopefully they don't "reduce to nothing".

Meanwhile, the performance issues (caching) they borrowed from Firefox, which can make Chrome irritating at best and slooooow to load a page at worst, have been around forever. Why don't they fix those? It'll certainly make performance better on a slow CPU, slow disk machine (say, a smartphone or netbook).

sidetab? yech.

[apostrophesemicolon]

The article questions why Google doesn't really pursue the use of Sidetab layout. I think the answer is because it's stupid. It takes up so much screen estate no matter how few tabs you have open. Looking at it, it almost feels like looking at Windows' folder view with common tasks to the left.

Sounds good... netbook vertical res is too low.

[WoTG]

This sounds good to me, as long as at least part of the URL is visible. There's really no need for the address bar to go all the way across the screen.

This is especially good on netbooks since the vertical resolution is annoyingly low. Though, I recently realized that fullscreen mode in any browser is useful to get that extra bit of vertical screen space - that makes a big difference on some sites!

That is a bad idea

[MichaelPenne]

I hope it doesn't make the cut. A simplified interface can be oversimplified.

Phone numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should people dial all "new" phone numbers at some point? Nobody has tried to fix THAT.

Uh, sure they have. You can have your contacts transferred from your old phone/SIM card, or synchronize them with your computer or a web app; receive vCards through email, Bluetooth or IrDA; read phone numbers with OCR or QR-code scanning; automatically parse them from web pages (including search results); get them from map location popups and social networking profiles; and probably several other ways. Maybe even look them up from email addresses in DNS using ENUM records.

I don't see the option of dialling going away, but that's not through lack of alternatives.

Enough already

[MrBippers]

Come on google, enough bullshit. Leave the non-critical tweaks until after you've fixed the goddamn "print selection" option.

Pathetical..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea.. that's the best place to announce such things.. Damn this stupid portal!

The end of the universal UI

[hcdejong]

What we see here is an attempt to maximise screen real estate. This is necessary on today's widescreen laptops and netbooks, but pointless for those who have a large monitor.
For this reason, the UI should be user-configurable.

Big monitors?

[moodel]

Just a heads up to the Chrome devs......my monitor is big enough to accommodate the URL bar. There is no need to remove it. Thanks.

An arbitrary URL does not make you independent

[FoolishOwl]

Did you actually type "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/20/1817259/Chrome-May-Drop-the-URL-Bar" to get to this page?

Or, did you type "slashdot.org" and follow links? Or click on a bookmark?

URLs are technical information. The advantage of human-readable URLs over IP addresses has faded considerably -- they're only nominally "human readable" once you get past the top level page.

Does it bother you that most workstations don't display their MAC addresses?

Re:An arbitrary URL does not make you independent

[grapeape]

I think your missing the point but actually to get to /. i use a bookmark I created...my own "address book" not googles or yahoo's or msn's. I just dont want to see the internet becoming the internet as filtered and extrapolated by your start page. URL's are technical information only in the sense that your street address is technical information...would it preferable if gps's were programmed to only show directions to places the gps manufacturer wanted you to see and gave priority to places that paid up to get higher ranking? My concern is simply that the continual dumbing down of the internet is causing an unnecessary erosion of net equality that favors nothing but old business models that rightly should be allowed to become obsolete.

Re:An arbitrary URL does not make you independent

[Sigma 7]

Did you actually type "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/20/1817259/Chrome-May-Drop-the-URL-Bar" to get to this page?

No, but I did type Slashdot in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot". While I could do the same through the search widgets, it feels inconsistent - sometimes it returns a list of search results (or lack thereof) and other times it goes directly to the page.

In fact, the sites that allow the user to re-write URLs easily are better to use. For example, some webcomics just include the date in the URL (or incrementing strip ID), while others require entering additional text after the date (or worse, have the strip ID non-auto incrementing).

Simple answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ! Just hit F11 once you have entered the URL that will give you your "screen estate" back

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Blame the 'consumers', not Google

[Joce640k]

We just spent five years making every computer screen wider instead of taller now we're trying to compensate for the lack of vertical space?

Now all we need are special anti-reflection glasses to compensate for the shiny screens.

Seems like Opera keeps marking the beat

[Lisandro]

Opera 11 does something similar - the URL bar shows, by default, only the main part of the URL and HTTPS statuses with color cues. As soon as you click on it the URL expands fully.

It's really unobtrusive and works great. This is one of my favorite perks of Opera 11, among with tab stacking.

Re:from someone who'd prefer status bar over url b

[jez9999]

Disagree. I've been experiencing this with a recent nightly of FF4 (Minefield) for a while now, and whilst it's OK, I find it distracting having the UI regularly appear/disappear. I preferred the static status bar.

Sidetab

[nutshell42]

Why don't they go for the sidetab version?

Let's take the article. Roughly 75% of my screen real estate is wasted. About 5% of those 75% is by the browser controls and the rest is white space because I like the majority of people out there have a widescreen monitor. They're not especially well-suited to text (unless you place a bunch of documents next to each other) with either

• lots of white space,
• hard to read lines of text that go on forever or
• a cacophony of content next to each other. (A dynamic multi-column layout like a newspaper would be interesting but normally it's just three columns of ads)

So why are browsers locked in a fight towards absurd minimalism when there's huge amounts of space to go around. And with more and more screens going for 16:9 instead of 16:10 it's getting worse, not better.

GoogleTV

[Anonymous Coward]

GoogleTV has already implimented this. It is a bit awkward at first but you get used to it.

I prefer to see my URL bar!

Thats one easy descision...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back to FireFox when that happens.

Ignore the blog spam. Article is probably wrong.

[hkmwbz]

If you search for the actual source instead of the silly, unsourced article at ConceivablyTech, you'll notice that it talks about Chromium OS, not Chromium (Chrome). So ignore the sensationalism by CT, and go to the actual source.

Multiple Logins

[Jake Griffin]

Allowing multiple logins on different tabs is kinda useless now that they already have this.

The way to do this properly

[Anonymous Coward]

is to show the URL in the tab. Permanently. Phishing warnings are simply not good enough.

And while they're at it, they should make the tabs wide enough for URLs and everyday page titles, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG5voyi9nU8

That also makes the tabs touch-sized and still minimizes the number of pixels taken up by non-content.

Reporter didn't do their research

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the mockups they got their info from, it's part of the ChromeOS page, not Chrome. Also, they've been around since February of last year, long before IE9's UI was revealed.