Slashdot Mirror


Google Is Serious, Chrome 13 Hides URL Bar

An anonymous reader writes "A few months ago, we heard about Google playing with the idea of killing the URL bar in its Chrome browser. Chrome 13 provides a first view how this feature will work. There is a new flag and a context menu option that hides the traditional URL bar and moves a shortened version into each tab."

417 comments

  1. And all for what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

    1. Re:And all for what? by SolemnDwarf · · Score: 2

      My screen is only 100 pixels tall, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:And all for what? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2

      It may be optional if it makes it to a stable build; in its current form it adds a menu option to the tabbar so it can be toggled at will.

    3. Re:And all for what? by tepples · · Score: 1

      And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

      That's 8% of the height of my Dell netbook's screen, which a web application could use to show more information with less scrolling.

    4. Re:And all for what? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you need it, you can always hit F11.

    5. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article specifically mentions that this is targeting mobile devices and that the extra space isn't a big deal on desktops.

    6. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you need the URL bar, you can always mouseover the tab.

    7. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 (from TFA which you didn't read) * 1920 = 57600 pixels saved. I'll take it.

    8. Re:And all for what? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Nah

      The developers were jealous of the Gnome team after playing with Gnome-Shell.

    9. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you need the URL bar, you can always mouseover the tab.

      Not good enough. When I'm developing a site, I need the URL so I can figure out whether things are working or not. And even when browsing for fun, I want the URL bar so I can modify it.

      On most finance sites, it's faster for me to simply change the "XYZ" in the "&symbol=XYZ" part of the URL than it is to enter it into some search box. On Slashdot, I can just paste &no_d2=1 into the end of a URL. On Fark, I just paste &cpp=1 to get one-page-per-thread view.

    10. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hardly even use the URL bar, I usually just open a new tab and type.

    11. Re:And all for what? by battling · · Score: 0

      A really good idea to hide the URL bar... it saves the screen space, mainly on small netbook displays... I always tend to waste as little space as possible... And hehe... no more URL advertisments like this one http://urlmarquee.com/ But sadly, it's the end of these crazy url games like url hunter or url buggy.

    12. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those of us with decent sized screens were here first.

    13. Re:And all for what? by plover · · Score: 2

      Safari on the iPhone does it well. The URL bar is scrolled along with the page data. If you need it, just scroll back up, or tap the status bar at the top of the screen to quickly scroll to the top. It's there when you need it, but goes away gracefully when you don't.

      --
      John
    14. Re:And all for what? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

      From Google's standpoint, lack of an address bar can steer more people back to Google for searches.

      From a user's point of view... Well, I use the address bar... But about 80% of my users do not. Even if I give them a web address, they'll go to Google/Yahoo/Bing/whatever and type it in there. So it wouldn't be much of a change for them.

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    15. Re:And all for what? by whiteboy86 · · Score: 1

      More likely to enhance ad targeting, all your usual direct to server queries goes through Google search now, so they get properly tracked.

    16. Re:And all for what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's a bad idea. I happen to like having my URL bar visible, so I can see where I am, make sure I'm not at some phishing site, so I can quickly type in a new address, so I can can copy&paste my current URL into an email and send to someone, etc.

      As an option for netbooks, that's fine, but that's nothing new either. Firefox has always had the option of disabling the "navigation toolbar" if you wanted more screen space. But netbooks are a tiny, tiny minority anyway, so settings optimal for them shouldn't be forced on everyone else by default. Netbooks seem to be dying out anyway, and they seem to have just been a short-lived fad that got supplanted by the iPad.

    17. Re:And all for what? by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 1

      No, it's so you can be like my wife and not go to sites by typing URLs directly into the URL box, but by visiting the Google homepage and type them in there.

    18. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm sure CTRL+L will still work to focus on the URL bar just as it does now. You do use a keyboard shortcut to access the location bar, right? After all, you seem to really be interested in doing things the fastest way possible.

      I am curious why the URL can determine whether your site is working or not. I've had plenty of occasions where the URL has helped me figure out why a site I'm working on isn't working, but the determination of whether it is or isn't working doesn't depend on seeing the URL.

    19. Re:And all for what? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Why would you use Ctrl-L, which requires you to use your right hand, when Alt-D is easily typed left-handed? My right hand is often on the mouse, and even if I'm moving it to the keyboard, Alt-D is still quicker.

    20. Re:And all for what? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 2

      I hope to everything that's holy and unholy that this will remain as a flag or a config setting, not some forced idiocy like hiding the "http://". The whole of Chrome is too well done to have them ruin it with a nonsensical move like this...

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    21. Re:And all for what? by marnues · · Score: 1

      And I'm excited to not have to look at it when I don't need to. It seems we are at an impasse.

    22. Re:And all for what? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Then it's a bad idea for you, but not necessarily for everyone else too. Just like you don't want Google to force their UI choices on you, don't try forcing your UI choices on others!
      Netbooks may not be a majority, but their numbers are quite numerous still. At my university alone, I see hundreds of them, and their users could benefit from as much screen estate as they can get, due to the tiny screen. It's also an option for tablets. But for laptops and desktops, please, just have it as a flag or an option, even if it's the default. Just give me a way to change it to my liking (likewise with the HTTP prefix, btw...)!

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    23. Re:And all for what? by samsonaod · · Score: 1

      And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

      If you don't want your 50 pixels can I have them?

    24. Re:And all for what? by Sparhawk2k · · Score: 1

      I can hit Ctrl-L with my left hand. I've got a Ctrl key on the right side of the keyboard as well the left, on both my laptop and external keyboard. And actually, not that I usually use either, but Ctrl-D is easier in this case because I can use my thumb and any finger from a more natural position without bending it under my finders or changing the angle.

    25. Re:And all for what? by Flipao · · Score: 1

      More likely to enhance ad targeting, all your usual direct to server queries goes through Google search now, so they get properly tracked.

      Yeah yeah we know, now then, was that Facebook or Microsoft who paid your PR firm to say that?

    26. Re:And all for what? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So don't enable the new option. Is it really that hard to figure this out?

    27. Re:And all for what? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Why not? This seems like a pretty good idea to me. Every little bit counts especially with netbooks and tablets.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    28. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Google likes the idiots who "Google" www.yahoo.com and then click on the first result. More traffic.

    29. Re:And all for what? by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I can hit Ctrl-L with my left hand. I've got a Ctrl key on the right side of the keyboard as well the left

      That requires moving your left hand off its natural position. So does F6. Alt-D doesn't.

      Ctrl-D is easier in this case because I can use my thumb and any finger from a more natural position without bending it under my finders or changing the angle.

      You're supposed to type with your fingers arched and your palms a good inch or so above the keyboard. I find there's plenty of room to tuck my left thumb underneath to hit the Alt key. My hand pivots a little to accommodate the reach, but the fingertips don't have to actually leave the keys they're resting on. And the gap between the space and the Alt key makes it easy to tell when the thumb has reached the key

      Also... does Ctrl-D highlight the address bar in Chrome? Because it's the shortcut to bookmark the page in Firefox, IE, and Opera.

    30. Re:And all for what? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      And I'm excited to not have to look at it when I don't need to. It seems we are at an impasse.

      And that's why it's configurable.

    31. Re:And all for what? by Chas · · Score: 1

      My screen is only 100 pixels tall, you insensitive clod!

      It's not about the size. It's about how you use it. .....

      Nahhh! It's about the size.

      (Posted from a 24" 1920x1080 monitor)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    32. Re:And all for what? by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Grishnak had a workable solution -- make the URL bar optional. Then people like him (and me) who would like to have a URL bar available are happy and people like you who are more worried about screen real estate are happy, too.

      Another compromise would be how my Android devices handle the URL bar: when you scroll to the top of the web page, the URL bar is visible. As soon as you begin to scroll down the page, the URL bar disappears. You could even have a timeout on the URL bar so that it is visible for, say, 30 seconds when you first navigate to a page (to avoid phishing sites, as Grishnak mentioned), but after the timeout, the URL bar disappears. If you scroll to the top of the page again, the URL bar could reappear for another 30 seconds or so. Rinse, repeat as required.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    33. Re:And all for what? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Making this change does little for usability, and does a lot to promote using the "Search" box at the top of the browser -- note that the new "Compact" view still includes a "Search" field to the left of the tabs. When a user wants to enter a URL, where are they going to look? Riiiiight... for a text box. If the only visible textbox is actually the "search" field... well... you do the math.

      The new "compact" URL bar behaves like the current "Find" text entry box - it drops down out of the tab bar. But the URL also disappears when you move your mouse away from it.

      I don't see this being all that beneficial for users - they get slightly more real estate, in exchange for lowered security: an elevated susceptibility to phishing, since you won't see the URLs displayed in general, and also less attention paid to whether you're on an https or http connection. And in return, when people are looking for a site... that search box will still be there, inviting users in. I'd say Google is definitely the big winner with this change.

    34. Re:And all for what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Grishnak had a workable solution -- make the URL bar optional. Then people like him (and me) who would like to have a URL bar available are happy and people like you who are more worried about screen real estate are happy, too.

      The problem is that these days, no one wants configurable options, they want everything set up to their liking right out of the box. Look at what's going on with the GNOME DE, for instance: all configuration options removed, and any complaints, or comparisons to KDE are met with cries of "too much clutter", "too confusing to set up", "too many configuration options", etc.

      If I had a netbook, I wouldn't want a URL bar using space on my screen either (though I'd like it if it popped up if I moved the mouse pointer up there, sorta like Safari on the iPhone, or Android as you note). But I don't have a netbook, I have dual 24" monitors, so I have plenty of screen space and want my URL bar on this system. Unlike most people these days, I have no mental problems with switching between different UIs for different devices.

      But again, it seems like everyone wants to have the exact same UI, regardless of what device they're using, whether it's a smartphone or a desktop PC. So we see things like Ubuntu's Unity that is optimized for a smartphone but forced on everyone even if they have giant monitors.

    35. Re:And all for what? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      With Chrome, you enter searches in ... the address bar.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    36. Re:And all for what? by lostmongoose · · Score: 1

      Only 24"? For shame.

    37. Re:And all for what? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Uh, even wondered how Chrome does suggestions on the address bar? It sends everything you type to Google's Prediction Service.

    38. Re:And all for what? by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      That requires moving your left hand off its natural position. So does F6. Alt-D doesn't.

      What are you talking about, of course pressing Alt-D when browsing the internet requires moving the left hand out of it's natural....oh...OHhhh....natural typing position. Nevermind.

    39. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if I give them a web address, they'll go to Google/Yahoo/Bing/whatever and type it in there.

      You're so charitable.

    40. Re:And all for what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Out here in the real world, I never see netbooks. Notebooks, sure: everyone at coffee shops has them. But not netbooks. You may not realize this, but the majority of the population is NOT in college.

      I'm not forcing my choices on anyone. If you don't want the URL bar, it's trivial to disable it in most browsers. It's been that way for at least a decade now, probably since the early days of Netscape even. Why do we need to change it now? Because of a small minority of people with mobile devices?

      Besides, how hard would it be to detect the screen size and set the default accordingly?

    41. Re:And all for what? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      So, if your iPad ran a full version of Chrome with extensions, would you like that ability to hide a URL bar then? How about a phone? Still a bad idea?

      They're not taking it away, they're adding the option to display how you want.

      --
      I8-D
    42. Re:And all for what? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Besides, how hard would it be to detect the screen size and set the default accordingly?

      Now there's an idea! I'd take it up with Google as a feature request or recommendation, if I were you...

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    43. Re:And all for what? by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      their numbers are quite numerous still.

      Wordy words, man.

    44. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A whopping 1080 vertical pixels?
      That's over 50 more than I have on my 17" monitor!

    45. Re:And all for what? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      (Posted from a 24" 1920x1080 monitor)

      Is it just me, or is it getting increasingly difficult to find a computer monitor that has greater resolution than a HDTV?? It seems the choices for greater vertical resolution are getting fewer and fewer...and what you can find, is generally getting kinda pricy.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    46. Re:And all for what? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're not taking it away, they're adding the option to display how you want.

      Doesn't sound like they're "adding an option" from the article. And I don't know about Chrome, but most other browsers have had the ability to disable the URL bar for probably 15 years now. It's been in Firefox (and Netscape before that) for as long as I can remember.

      So, if your iPad ran a full version of Chrome with extensions, would you like that ability to hide a URL bar then? How about a phone?

      Again, I don't know about Chrome, but other browsers have had this ability since the browser was invented. If people are too stupid to go to View->Toolbars->Navigation Toolbar and uncheck it, that's their problem.

      Every time I use a brand-new installation of Firefox, I always have to disable the "Bookmarks Toolbar" which is enabled by default, because I don't find it useful, and I think it's a waste of space (I go to "Bookmarks" from the main menu when I need them). So what do I do? Scream and cry that this toolbar needs to be removed? Nope, I just go to View->Toolbars->Bookmark Toolbar and I uncheck it. Problem solved. Now, I could understand complaints if the only way to remove it was to hack the source code, or to go to "about:config" and search through a couple thousand lines there, but it's not, it's an extremely easy menu setting.

    47. Re:And all for what? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      And all this is being done for what?

      TFA:

      On a large desktop screen, killing the URL bar approach may be pointless, even if this is a clear move toward a full screen view to benefit web apps. It is mobile device that are the target and the true beneficiary of this technology...

      It's amazing what you can learn if you ever manage to learn to read. Good luck with that...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    48. Re:And all for what? by slaker · · Score: 1

      Not really. There are 16x10 computer displays out there. They're marketed for professional use while the consumer garbage sticks with the cheaper and lower resolution panels. At sizes above 24", proper computer displays do offer even higher resolution, but since a 32" HDTV is $350 and a 32" computer monitor is more like $2000, it's pretty easy to see why one is a lot more common than the other.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    49. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A really good idea to hide the URL bar

      I think every phishing organization on the planet just came a little.

    50. Re:And all for what? by somersault · · Score: 1

      What's the point in having "http://" before everything? It's implied given that you're using a web browser. Https sites turn green. When you copy the URL it adds the protocol prefix. Seems ideal to me!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    51. Re:And all for what? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 2

      Except that it breaks copypaste: when I hit CTRL+C, I expect to see EXACTLY the same thing when hitting CTRL+V, but Chrome modifies the clipboard before posting. I don't like that.
      Also, it may be ideal for you, but it doesn't cut it for me, I liked seeing the protocol prefix. They could at least insert a flag to re-enable it, even if it's off by default.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    52. Re:And all for what? by CCarrot · · Score: 2

      From a user's point of view... Well, I use the address bar... But about 80% of my users do not. Even if I give them a web address, they'll go to Google/Yahoo/Bing/whatever and type it in there. So it wouldn't be much of a change for them.

      I hear you. Trying to remotely 'troubleshoot' for my parents, it's often a struggle to get them to type the website into "the white box at the top of the screen, by the File/Edit/View thingys". About half the time they wind up typing whatever I tell them into the Google search bar, then we get to spend some quality time with them describing their search results and me trying to figure out which one is the one they want...to my dad, Google is 'the internet'.

      They are getting better at it...but I usually still have to open up whatever program they're using to try to follow along with their 'descriptions'...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    53. Re:And all for what? by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      Yes, but doesnt using google like that unnecessarily increase the load on their servers?
      Isnt it kind of like abusing Google Search?

    54. Re:And all for what? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      OK, so can we be clear that Google Chrome is a browser designed for netbooks?

      I mean, they should probably rename it Google Netbook or something. In all seriousness, if things are going to be targetted at a very low resolution, I don't want to run them on my PC with a real monitor.

    55. Re:And all for what? by IceDogg · · Score: 1

      30 pixels. RTFA.

    56. Re:And all for what? by Drgnkght · · Score: 1

      No. Google benefits. They get to see where you are going on the web even when you aren't using search to find it. I'd wager they love it when people do that.

    57. Re:And all for what? by Altus · · Score: 1

      While I like this solution on the iPhone, where every bit of screen counts. I'm not sure that I would want this on my laptop or desktop.

      I'm already a little annoyed with the way tabs work on chrome. I can easily open enough of them that I can't see an icon for each tab and only get the first letter of the name of the page, also there is no list of tabs anywhere. It makes navigation more difficult.

      I also don't browse full screen most of the time, which is pretty much what chrome focuses on. Thus far I have not been very impressed with Googles UI development outside of web applications (where they seem to do at least a decent job) but hopefully with time they will start to consider other ways people might use their browser.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    58. Re:And all for what? by somersault · · Score: 0

      How about writing http:/// on a post it note and stick it in the corner just in case you forget? While you're at it, don't forget to stick MPH (or KPH) and the appropriate values on every notch on your speedometer. Probably should label all your clothes too just in case you think your socks are ear warmers.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    59. Re:And all for what? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      more likely it is to make it clear what tab the info in the address bar belongs to. Tabbed browsing means you have multiple addresses that can be displayed in the address bar depending on the active tab in the window. Since the address is for a specific tab, why not include it in the tab it is for?

      This can lead to a more flexible UI in the future, you could use an tiling display like the IDE for eclipse where you group tabs into panels.

    60. Re:And all for what? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      'note that the new "Compact" view still includes a "Search" field to the left of the tabs.'

      The picture in TFA shows a search bar up there, but the current flag only has the forward/back buttons, your tabs, the new-tab button, the settings wrench, and the window controls. I like it like this.

      To open up the URL bar, you can click on the selected tab, and it will drop down (along with the refresh button and the bookmark button). Or, you can hit ctrl-L to drop it down and select the text in it, and then start typing your new URL (my preferred method).

    61. Re:And all for what? by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      Gahh!! that brings me back to a terrible terrible time in internet history when every site was hosted by angelfire and site owners let you know their precious piece of digital property was permanently under construction with animated gifs; the status bar told you everything you didn't want to know, and the blink tag was the best thing since sliced bread. My Eyes! Get it off! Get it off!

      --
      Get a web developer
    62. Re:And all for what? by br4nd0nh3at · · Score: 0

      Go to the link, it's 1 option out of 4.

    63. Re:And all for what? by houghi · · Score: 1

      It is the worst idea ever. It is already very bad that people type the URL in google and then complain that they do not get what they need. I have seen people complain that they did not get what they wanted after being asked to type a local URL.

      At least now I can explain: No, go to the top where it says http://www.google.com/ delete that and type http://local.site/ (People need to hear the http:/// for some reason, even getting confused if you do not mention the www)

      And now I would have to explain to press some strange key combination they have never heard of to be able to go to some site?

      The reason is obvious. They know many already use google as their URL bar, but just not enough and this is a great way to force many more to use google.

      Not doing any evil? That has been thrown out a LONG time ago. Probably the moment they realized they could make money with it.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    64. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, he can use Chrome's option. F11 prevents me from alt-tabbing - what if I want to run two things side-by-side on a 1366x768 screen (e.g. terminal or IDE on one side, web browser on the other)? It also looks like you can still access the URL bar - I bet if you were to hit Alt-D, you would still get access to it.

    65. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's talking about copy/pasting. If http shows all you have to do is copy it into an email and most email readers will recognize it as a weblink. Without the http most email readers will not recognize subdomains that don't start with www. Just one example I can think of where having http show is useful. Also, I use more than http and https in my browser. Get off slashdot you novice user.

    66. Re:And all for what? by somersault · · Score: 1

      When you copy and paste, it adds in the protocol. Try reading my original comment. When you use ftp it may even add the prefix, I don't know. I'm happy with ftp on the command line - but then again I'm just a novice user, not someone who gets paid to do network support and programming, definitely not.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    67. Re:And all for what? by eric_brissette · · Score: 1

      I believe most mobile browsers work that way with the URL bar scrolling up off the screen.

      In Android 3.0/3.1 the URL bar scrolls off the screen but the tabs remain.. I would definitely prefer to be able to instantly get an address bar by double-tapping the tab instead of having to scroll all the way back to the top of the page to access it.

    68. Re:And all for what? by bipedalhominid · · Score: 1

      Yeah baby, I got 4 flats hooked up to a Quadro card. Screen size is 20 inches by 50 inches.

      --
      This aint Daytona and you aint Dale Earnhardt. So stop trying to draft on Interstate 40.
    69. Re:And all for what? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Seconded. Look for the professional or IPS panel screens. They cost more but have a better picture. The colors are more accurate with an IPS panel. So says everyone that sees my monitor at work. I have a 24 inch 1920X1200 model at home for about 6 months now. I paid $450 for it. I couldn't justify the $1000 for the 27 inch or $1300 for the 30 inch. I believe HP also makes a 16X10 24 inch monitor. They are in the professional section there as well.

    70. Re:And all for what? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      And that's why it's configurable.

      And why Firefox 4 fails utterly. They literally did remove the 'status bar'. Not an ability to hide it, it's gone.

      At least one case where Google isn't forcing the change down on people...what a concept.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    71. Re:And all for what? by Stormtrooper42 · · Score: 1

      Pardon my ignorance, but where's the option to enable the status bar in Chrome?

    72. Re:And all for what? by GeckoAddict · · Score: 1

      I believe HP also makes a 16X10 24 inch monitor.

      HP ZR24w - 1920x1200 IPS panel, roughly $400 on Amazon (when they're in stock). I use one at work and it's a nice monitor.

    73. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somersault is correct, though you have to drag from right all the way to left to get the http://. It's been like this for eons.

    74. Re:And all for what? by norminator · · Score: 1

      A) It's not on by default. Not only do you have to go to about:flags to enable it, but you then have to right click on a tab and choose to hide it (from what I'm seeing, all new tabs seem to be hide the URL bar from then on). Thus, you still have to really want it hidden.

      B) I like to be able to quickly get to the address bar to type in a URL or to copy the current URL, but I've always done that with Ctrl+L, which has always been much quicker than moving the mouse up there and selecting the URL. Ctrl+L still works perfectly, and Ctrl+K still clears the URL bar and drops in a question mark so you can just type what you want to search for.

    75. Re:And all for what? by norminator · · Score: 1

      I'm using it right now, and I really like it. I mentioned this in another post, but I'll say it again. Not only is it an option, but you have to find it first in about:flags, enable it, restart the browser, then right-click on a tab and choose "Hide the toolbar".

      It's an option, hidden far out of the way, with multiple steps to get to it. It's not being forced on anyone.

    76. Re:And all for what? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Generally if you just single click in address bars it does a select all anyway.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    77. Re:And all for what? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I wasn't talking about the status bar in chrome, I was saying that Firefox doesn't give you the option to 'reenable' the status bar - they completely removed it from the program entirely.

      Guess I could have been more clear.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    78. Re:And all for what? by norminator · · Score: 2

      You don't have to use a key combination to get to the URL bar, you can just click on the tab. But if you like keyboard shortcuts, Ctrl+L still works to pull up the URL bar and highlight the current URL, and Ctrl+K still works for searching, just as those shortcuts have been standard in most browsers for years now.

      Also, it's not on by default. The ability to even show the option is hidden away in about:flags. Once you allow that option to be shown, you still have to turn it on yourself. It's a very deliberate process.

    79. Re:And all for what? by J-1000 · · Score: 1

      With today's widescreen monitors you need all the vertical space you can get. What's the big deal of introducing this as an option? I would love it.

    80. Re:And all for what? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im not really clear, what is the problem with hiding HTTP? If it is an HTTPS connection, it displays "https://", if FTP it shows "ftp://".... its a web browser, it makes HTTP connections and renders HTML. I dont really expect to see a gigantic tag at the top of every webpage either.

      Seriously I can kind of see the outrage with the address bar thing, but seeing "http" is really not helping anyone.

    81. Re:And all for what? by starofale · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's any need for a status bar any more - addon buttons can go at the top and target URLs show in a popup at the bottom.

      However, one of the best things about Firefox are it's addons - you can re-enable the status bar if you want by using Status-4-Evar

    82. Re:And all for what? by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Call me old-fashioned, paranoid, or anything, but that's just the way I like it... I learned to live with it, but it still bugs me.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    83. Re:And all for what? by froggymana · · Score: 1

      With Chrome, you enter searches in ... the address bar.

      While that is partially correct, it is not completely correct. Chrome calls that the "Omnibar".

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    84. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be cooler when they Web X.0 (whenever it happens) moves to a MDI interface that allows webpages to act as applications with the sandboxing of Chrome - to really make it a viable desktop OS I think it's where Google will have to head with Chrome - and it will make app development much cheaper overall (server apps aside, for the most part). Just wait - in 10 years Gears will be running QuakeXX faster than a SDI app.

    85. Re:And all for what? by equex · · Score: 1

      Isn't this why there is a 'F11' button to go full screen ? I always stay in full screen unless i need something from the GUI.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
    86. Re:And all for what? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      (Posted from a 24" 1920x1080 monitor)

      Is it just me, or is it getting increasingly difficult to find a computer monitor that has greater resolution than a HDTV?? It seems the choices for greater vertical resolution are getting fewer and fewer...and what you can find, is generally getting kinda pricy.

      Unfortunately, your observation is correct. I'm posting this from a laptop with a 17" 1920x1200 display. It's almost 8 years old, and maxed out on 1 GB of RAM, but we're likely to keep it going a while longer (Lubuntu rocks!). It seems that laptops with decent options and 1920x1080 screens are common enough at price points around 1500euro, but to get an equivalent laptop with a 1920x1200 display one must add at least 1000euro to the price, just for an extra 120 vertical pixels.

      Those extra 120 vertical pixels are actually quite important. One of our desktops has an 11-year-old 1600x1200 LCD display, while the other has a pair of 1920x1080 LCD displays. Although they are otherwise equivalent (quad core 2.6GHz, 8GB RAM, 3 TB disks, etc.), the one with 1200 vertical pixels is nicer to use, even though it has fewer pixels overall.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    87. Re:And all for what? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is, in Chrome the URL bar *IS* the search bar. You click in it and type whatever the heck you want and Google gives it to you.

      This seems to be going to discourage people from searching for things. I know the first thing my wife would ask me is "how do i search?" People are not used to clicking a "search" button to bring up a box, that is very passe.

    88. Re:And all for what? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Wow, you mean like in other browsers since the year 2000?

    89. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course - because F11 just screams "url bar" to me, that's completely intuitive...

    90. Re:And all for what? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Really bad idea, because I like to see where I am, for phishing reasons if nothing else. Realistically it also kills a lot of efficiency when having multiple tabs open.

      Same reason for status bar at least in mozilla - I like being able to see where the link leads immediately, not to mention various status add-ons like ghostery feeding me information at a glance. If I ever want to go for minimalist look, all I need to do is hit F11. I don't need a forced full screen mode shoved down my throat, thank you very much, and that's where this is going.

      A lot of this apparent minimalist mania seems to be about making PC (note: talking about personal computers in general here, including macs and others) browsers just as bad as mobile ones, since we can't make mobile ones be as good as desktop ones due to lack of screen space. With google and android, it only makes sense that they are pushing for it.

      What makes much less sense is others actually following them.

    91. Re:And all for what? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Which is why I'm not upgrading to 4.x until there is a reliable way to get it to come back. And since I don't really care about investigating this issue, as 3.6.x satisfies my browsing needs, it's pretty unlikely that I will ever upgrade.

      It really makes me wonder - on one hand we have a whole boat of bloatware a la personas shoved down our throats. On the other hand, things we actually need like status bar are getting the axe. Does mozilla actually want IE to rebound on its share because it will remain the only proper PC browser instead of "full experience of mobile piece of shit browser on your desktop PC"?

    92. Re:And all for what? by theweatherelectric · · Score: 1

      And why Firefox 4 fails utterly. They literally did remove the 'status bar'. Not an ability to hide it, it's gone.

      At least one case where Google isn't forcing the change down on people...what a concept.

      Install the Status-4-Evar add-on and your status bar is back. This is why Firefox 4 wins completely. It's extremely extensible. Alternatively, you can use Firefox 4's add-on bar to display status oriented add-ons and toolbar icons and buttons similarly to the old status bar. I use the add-on bar to display two extensions I happen to like (ShowIP and ServerSpy).

    93. Re:And all for what? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      more likely it is to make it clear what tab the info in the address bar belongs to.

      How is that not clear? The URL bar always goes with the tab that is focused.

    94. Re:And all for what? by speederaser · · Score: 1

      I type longer URLs in the search box to let google handle my typos. It's quicker and safer that way. God knows what lives at the other end of some of the URLs I've mangled.

      If Google benefits, well good on them. I benefit too.

    95. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F11 is full-screen, and gives tepples the 8% of his screen that he wants, plus the space taken up by the tabs too.

    96. Re:And all for what? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Most web browsers support other protocols as well, like ftp:// for instance. I remember an IRC plugin for Netscape that used irc://, and it also used to open a terminal window for telnet:// sessions.

      I remember using gopher:// on some web browser back when the Alice Cooper fan club had a gopher site, although I'd be surprised if any modern browser supported it.

      Granted, pretty much no one uses such things anymore (except maybe ftp:// so I doubt it'll be a big deal, as long as you can still type or paste links starting with http:/// into it.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    97. Re:And all for what? by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      While I like this solution on the iPhone, where every bit of screen counts. I'm not sure that I would want this on my laptop or desktop.

      I'm already a little annoyed with the way tabs work on chrome. I can easily open enough of them that I can't see an icon for each tab and only get the first letter of the name of the page, also there is no list of tabs anywhere. It makes navigation more difficult.

      Shift+Esc to open Chrome's task manager, double click on the page you want to switch to.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    98. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

      RTFA it's 30 pixels!

    99. Re:And all for what? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I hope to everything that's holy and unholy that this will remain as a flag or a config setting, not some forced idiocy like hiding the "http://". The whole of Chrome is too well done to have them ruin it with a nonsensical move like this...

      IIRC, http was hidden because Google has been experimenting with SPDY and a lot of their sites actually aren't using HTTP under Chrome anymore.

      Since most people have no idea what SPDY is, probably want the features it offers, and will have trouble sending everyone SPDY://google.com links... it makes sense to hide it and automatically replace it with HTTP in copy-paste.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    100. Re:And all for what? by Altus · · Score: 1

      The task manager isnt bad, though honestly I just want a menu.

      But on a Mac, there is no keyboard shortcut listed. Seems kind of odd, its not like those are reserved keys. Maybe I should log a bug.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    101. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get why people complain about the hidden http thing. I haven't noticed it, and I copy-paste a lot of links.

    102. Re:And all for what? by dewatf · · Score: 1

      50 pixels -- that's an extra limb you can see while watching porn on your netbook!

    103. Re:And all for what? by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I don't even like the new versions of Opera hiding part of the URL on me. I like to see the messy URL with all of the 'crap' added to the end. I don't like the idea of the browser hiding it from me, and certainly don't like the idea of the browser hiding everything from me.

      We know there have been issues in the past with people finding ways of making the URL look like the site you think you are on. Well, if you hide the URL bar, they don't even have to do that any more.

      Configurable is good, it means that I can turn it on (for now?!), but if they really really want to add this, the default should be to show the URL bar and give someone the option to hide if it they so desire.

    104. Re:And all for what? by drinsilence · · Score: 1

      you just raised the bar...

    105. Re:And all for what? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the clipboard itself needs improving since it is basically the same as it was in the late 70s. In Firefox I like the way it removed excess spaces around text I copy from a web page, but it would be nice if the clipboard had that built in. That way it could accept formatted raw text and give you the option of what to paste.

      MS Office had its own extended clipboard that offers that sort of thing, but it doesn't remember your preferences from paste to paste so gets a bit annoying. The basic idea is sound though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    106. Re:And all for what? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

      They already have Android and are launching Chrome OS, both aimed at smaller screens. To make the browser on all three consistent and still give the maximum possible space to content this makes sense. The Android browser, and also the iPhone one I believe, hide the URL bar most of the time.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    107. Re:And all for what? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Android browser used to be like that, but now the menu bar hides automatically and is recalled with the menu button. It is a much better solution because it avoids having to scroll just to get the bar. Scrolling takes time and moves the view away from the content you were just looking at.

      It never really occurred to me before but the single home button on the iPhone/iPad is similar to the single mouse button Macs have. Apple really do love this one button thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    108. Re:And all for what? by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      No it's not. Memory management in chrome is still poor and to maximize screen real estate you F11 anyway so trying to be frugal with the nav bar is just pr/management running out of ideas.

      I don't really believe that it is a good idea to hide url information from the users. On the other side I run browsers on my netbook always full screen. On another note though I can use the keyboard to get my way around an os and browser so it doesn't have an impact on my usage or the info that comes my way.

      Summarizing I think that there are better ways for people to use more screen real estate if they are willing to educate themselves (xmonad, fullscreened applications) and the general populous should just keep up using the legacy interfaces since all other devitions just give up security or info...

      my 02c

      --
      -- no sig today
    109. Re:And all for what? by justforgetme · · Score: 1

      well, if they decide to mainline the hidden search/location bar they probably will use features like right-click, new-tab, etc to give search input solutions.

      --
      -- no sig today
    110. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're off by about a decade. IE9 is the only other browser that combines the search and address bars--and it was released just this year.

    111. Re:And all for what? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Separation of concerns. the address belongs to the tab, not to the browser window. Clear or not, it more correctly goes in the tab.

      Plus, like I mentioned, you can now have a browser window that displays multiple tab sets in a tiled fashion without confusion.

    112. Re:And all for what? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      This is why Firefox 4 wins completely. It's extremely extensible.

      Indeed, but something so basic as the Status Bar seems a bit much to expect an Add-On to have to implement. What's next, the back button?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    113. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is trying to further blur the line between native applications and webapps by minimizing the browser UI.

    114. Re:And all for what? by MidoriKid · · Score: 1

      I use xmonad, you insensitive clod!

    115. Re:And all for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netbook users have to scroll to the top of their keyboards to find the F11 key.

    116. Re:And all for what? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Do you also know why this is ?

      Atleast I heared that the material where these displays are cut out of have a certain size and when they cut it for wide-monitors they waste less material. So that is why the others are more expensive.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    117. Re:And all for what? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      If anyone read TFAs that were linked, this feature is meant mainly for MOBILE users with limited screen real estate. Entirely optional for PC users especially since it can enable phishing attacks.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    118. Re:And all for what? by ELProphet · · Score: 1

      What's next, the back button?

      Yep.

      From http://mozillalabs.com/conceptseries/2011/05/24/community-concepts-ubiquitous-firefox-part-1-how-do-you-design-a-debris-less-browser/

      Next time, I want to revisit the Back and Forward buttons more deeply, to rethink the way they’ve functioned since their inception

    119. Re:And all for what? by T1301087645 · · Score: 1

      CTRL+'/'

    120. Re:And all for what? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      that's the 'Addon Bar' not the status bar.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    121. Re:And all for what? by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Google Chrome has *never* had a status bar. Don't lecture me about shoving stuff down people's throats.

      You can turn the Firefox status bar back on. It's been renamed "add-on bar". Press "Ctrl+/" or 'Preferences->Add-On Bar'

    122. Re:And all for what? by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      Really? That's why? What do you even use your status bar for? To see the URL when you float your mouse over a link? Firefox 4 does that without the need for a permanent status bar, just like Google Chrome does. For your add-ons that have icons down there (weather fox, adblock, etc)? Then turn on the Add-On Bar.

      I don't think IE 9 has a status bar, either. IE 9 doesn't even support more than 2 or 3 tabs decently unless you play with the settings. Nobody's going to rebound because Firefox 4 hid the status bar by default and implemented its primary usage without wasting screen space...

    123. Re:And all for what? by wukka · · Score: 1

      One of the biggest mistakes of the computer industry was to BORG monitors to conform with movie industry 16:9 instead of the pleasing 4:3 screen ratio. I wish there was a widescreen with resolution which worked out to ???? X 1280, so I could simply rotate the video for a nice full page display. cheers!

    124. Re:And all for what? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      In order: yes and chrome implementation is a terrible downgrade, yes and having an add-on to replicate a partial functionality of something taken away is ridiculous, I don't care as I don't use IE.

  2. I will miss the bar by LunaticTippy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am starting to dislike progress. I need a drink.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
    1. Re:I will miss the bar by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Starting you say?

    2. Re:I will miss the bar by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What bothered me is Chrome's removal of the bookmars bar. Now it is hidden under the settings menu. I should not have to do this each time I want to go to a bookmark. Worse, they removed the Google search engine bar at the top of the screen. Now I have to hit delete on an url and type whatever I want or click new tab and then type it. Under IE 9 and Firefox I just type in the search bar.

      Seriously Google, you are not saving space by removing these.

      "I am starting to dislike progress. I need a drink."

      I hear you. I had the unfortunate experience with using Fedora 15 with Gnome-shell last night. I just wiped the virtual partition and am installing Fedora 14 with Gnome 2.x for my unix web development. Sure I only have Postgresql 8.x and not 9.0.3 but I keep my sanity in the process.

      All I have to say is thank god for competition with 2 other good browsers. IE 9 actually doesn't suck! It is stunning and fast and in the same league as Firefox 4 and Chrome 10. Competition is a beautiful thing. Issue I have is that Firefox 4 does not accelerate video on Linux so if you have Ubuntu or Fedora you are stuck with Chrome if you want a semi good browsing experience which is annoying.

    3. Re:I will miss the bar by NNKK · · Score: 2

      What bothered me is Chrome's removal of the bookmars bar. Now it is hidden under the settings menu. I should not have to do this each time I want to go to a bookmark.

      WTF? Just click on "Always Show Bookmarks Bar". You don't have to do anything else. Ever. Your bookmarks bar will be there permanently.

    4. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my, what a fucked-up definition of "progress" you just blindly accepted from those who actually move backwards...
      Dumbing-down is not progress, never was, and never will be.
      Dumbing-down is what spineless losers do, who are so insecure in themselves, that they obey the screams of the loud retards.
      Which unfortunately seems to be the case with most smart people, especially geeks, who all their life were brainwashed into thinking that the sports guy (who can't add up 2+2 and now works as a burger flipper) in class was cooler than them.
      It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    5. Re:I will miss the bar by Idbar · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the whole point. He won't be able to get a drink... because they hid the bar!

      I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress!

    6. Re:I will miss the bar by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I am starting to dislike progress

      If only there were a button for that!...

    7. Re:I will miss the bar by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or Ctrl+Shift+B to toggle it.

    8. Re:I will miss the bar by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Of course if you have it always on you're wasting even more space than the URL box takes up, and if you don't have it on you have to click the tool icon thing, then click on the "Bookmark manager" option, which opens the bookmarks in a new tab, and then double-click on the bookmark you want to open it.

      Perhaps they should consider adding some kind of button you could click that would temporarily open the bookmarks bar and let you single click on a bookmark and then it would immediately open that page and the bookmarks bar would go away.

      And you know what would make it even better? If they made the bar vertical instead of horizontal, so you could actually see a decent number of bookmarks at one time. I guess it wouldn't be a bar at that point though, it would be like, a list i guess, that would kind of... drop down when you clicked the button. In fact they already have that button at the end of the bookmark bar when you get "too many" bookmarks, so they'd just need to move it up to the top instead of making it a part of the bookmarks bar.

      That would be convenient _and_ not waste screen space all the time, perhaps Google should start doing research into how such a thing could be developed?

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    9. Re:I will miss the bar by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Issue I have is that Firefox 4 does not accelerate video on Linux so if you have Ubuntu or Fedora you are stuck with Chrome if you want a semi good browsing experience which is annoying.

      Only if you aren't using an nVidia card, the only graphics card on Linux that has drivers that don't suck.

    10. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure I only have Postgresql 8.x and not 9.0.3

      No reason you should have to sacrifice that, and you don't have to with relative ease: http://yum.pgrpms.org/

    11. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disliked this as well, though to be fair, since it would show the bookmarks when you opened a new tab, it still worked decently.

      That said, I only ever tried chrome (iron actually) for a little while, before switching back to FF, couldn't give up my NoScript.

    12. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the whole point. He won't be able to get a drink... because they hid the bar! I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress!

      I would tip her if I could find her

    13. Re:I will miss the bar by Lifyre · · Score: 1

      Wow...

      I missed that, thanks.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    14. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. It is only there on a blank tab. It isn't there when a page is displayed, like now. So, any time I want to access a bookmark in Chrome, I have to open a new tab. So, apparently according to Google, I will never actually be done browsing whatever site is up in a tab at the time that I choose to access a bookmarked site. No, instead they have decided that I will always want *both* my current site open *and* the site I am opening from a bookmark simultaneously. In the end, I don't really care what they do with the address bar because I've already been thinking about making Opera my primary browser again and this will just seal the deal.

    15. Re:I will miss the bar by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 2

      CTRL + SHIFT + B will pop the bookmark bar up/down for you.

      But I guess I am expecting too much for people to RTFM.

      And no, I haven't memorized hundreds of keyboard shortcuts. Just the ones that I found interesting/useful. (probably 5 or 6)

    16. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Now I have to hit delete on an url and type whatever I want or click new tab and then type it.

      CTRL-L will highlight the URL bar text. Typing will replace it. You're about to type anyway, why go through an input context switch to achieve the same result?

    17. Re:I will miss the bar by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

      But I guess I am expecting too much for people to RTFM.

      Yes, you are. The inherent promise of a GUI is that you won't *have* to use a key combo to perform an action. And most users have learned the 5 or 6 keystrokes they find useful or interesting, just like you have, but *that one wasn't one of them*.

      Google really needs to hire a usability expert rather than some harebrained post-grad who would better serve the world by flipping burgers.

      --
      "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    18. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, it's still a menu option. What you've said completely misses the point entirely, it's so funny.

    19. Re:I will miss the bar by psiclops · · Score: 1

      Now I have to hit delete on an url and type whatever I want or click new tab and then type it.

      Really? cause on my computer when text is highlighted and i start typing it automatically deletes the highlighted text and replaces it with what i type.

      also, when you click into the url bar it auto highlights the whole url.

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    20. Re:I will miss the bar by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      But I guess I am expecting too much for people to RTFM.

      Good point, but you know I could also use a browser where I didn't have to read manual in order to use it?

      I like short-cuts, but if they are not 100% standard across all applications I use or displayed on the screen constantly at all times, they are not really any good.

    21. Re:I will miss the bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am starting to dislike "progress." I need a drink.

      FTFY

    22. Re:I will miss the bar by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone need a bookmark toolbar?
      It's easier to just type in a letter or two from the bookmark's name and you get it as a first choice.
      In Firefox 4 its even easier - Instead of opening the 3-4 sites you normally visit using bookmarks, I just have them open as App Tabs and get live update notifications.

      The search bar is even a greater mystery to me. Why do you need to clutter the UI for something you can do from the same address/awesome bar?
      I just ctrl-L or ctrl-T and type what I want to search for. In actuality I have an address keyword for different searches:
      g for normal Google search
      gg for I'm feeling lucky
      img for images
      vid for video
      alpha for Worlfram Alpha
      dict for dictionary.com
      and so on..

      --
      ^_^
    23. Re:I will miss the bar by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      But I guess I am expecting too much for people to RTFM.

      It sure is, when the alternative is to use the another browser. I mean, you're asking me to learn something new... fine, I like learning. But that means using Chrome has gone from "install software and use" to "learn". It means instead of it being a low cost option, it's now competing with the learning I do to advance my hobbies/other skills. And frankly, Chrome doesn't offer enough to compete there.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  3. Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When will I be able to set Chrome so that it doesn't use tabs and opens new windows instead? Firefox has always been able to do this. Why is Chrome forcing me to use tabs when I already have a perfectly nice window manager?

    1. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 1

      Just so I'm clear - you have a browser that does what you want, but you're complaining because not every browser does everything you want? Or maybe your use of the word "forcing" is a clue - does Google have a gun to your head to ensure that you use Chrome? Is it Swordfish style, so you're also getting a bj from Halle Berry? Cause AWESOME.

    2. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      No, Firefox is the least bad of the browsers that has a feature that I can't live without. But it pains me to see Chrome all "serious" about UI customizability but then it refuses to customize tabs. I want to use Chrome, or at least try using it and see how it stacks up. But for now, I think a very strange design decision is keeping me from it. I'm not saying that Google has an obligation to do this. I'm saying that if Google wants an extra set of users - which it does - this would be a simple way of doing it. There's a lot more demand for that than ... hiding the URL bar! OK? So that's my previous post, interpreted for the feebleminded.

    3. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Informative

      New Tab, New Window might help.

    4. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by mistiry · · Score: 0

      Actually, it wasn't Halle Berry that gave the BJ, it was some blonde girl.

      Although, we did get to see Halle's rack; veddy nice!

    5. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by Alternate+Interior · · Score: 1

      An excellent point. I find tabs are terribly useful on one screen but the utility of multiple windows rapidly overtakes the utility of multiple tabs by the time you have more than 1 monitor. Let the window manager do its job. Pointing out deficiencies is the easiest way to get it fixed in the proper layer.

    6. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Complaining? Well if Google wants me or Dr. Spork to change they need to fix it is all he is saying.

      I have been using Chrome more and more since so many slashdotters and reviewers claim how much better it is and faster. But UI annoyances is what keeps me from adopting. I like all 3 major browsers under Windows but dislike what Chrome is doing to the UI. Otherwise I do feel it is slightly snappier and lighter than Firefox, so I switched back to Firefox this week

    7. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by NNKK · · Score: 1

      Tabs came about because nobody would fix the "proper layer". You understand it was over TEN YEARS before the first tabbed browsers started becoming popular, right?

    8. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it wasn't Halle Berry that gave the BJ, it was some blonde girl.

      Sounds good to me, I'd rather get blown by a good looking blonde chick, that Halle Berry any day of the week.

      I honestly don't see the appeal many people see in HB.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is Chrome forcing me to use tabs when I already have a perfectly nice window manager?

      Oh, so you're not using OS X I guess...
      (hides from the apple hordes)

    10. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Just wondering, why do you insist on using new windows instead of tabs?

    11. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by chickenarise · · Score: 1

      Because he has a window manager you twit. Learn to read.

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
    12. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Is your Ctrl+N key broken?

    13. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      I just right click on a link, open in new window, on the very rare occasion I want a new window. It's been there forever.

      Or to start a blank one, Cntrl-N.

    14. Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I really meant, is there an reason, or is it just an attempt to live with an old paradigm despite a better method being available? I see no benefit to using windows over tabs (and plenty of detriments), especially when all it takes is to drag a tab out to get a window.

  4. Widescreen by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 2

    Kind of a nice way to offset the loss of vertical pixels as monitors move from 4:3(1280*1024) to 16:10(1280*800) to 16:9(1366*768)..

    1. Re:Widescreen by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      1280x1024 is not 4:3 but it is a commonly supported video mode on 5:4 LCD panels, which were common before the "HD" television push which caused the 16:9 and 16:10 panels to flood the market.

      1280x960 is a commonly supported video mode on 4:3 CRT's. If you are using 1280x1024 on a 4:3 display then those pixels arent square.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Widescreen by whovian · · Score: 1

      Good riddance. Applications' menu bars (not in Chrome) shouldn't need 33% of the monitor vertical space.

      It is kind of funny...how yesterday's long monitors (just to see a single entire document page or print preview page) are today's widescreens. It also makes perfect sense to have side menus.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:Widescreen by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      yea.. missed that

      got used to thinking of non wide monitors as 4:3

    4. Re:Widescreen by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      "long" monitors meaning?

      I thought the ratios moved from 4:3 or 5:4 ->16:10 -> 16:9

      were there monitors with 9:16 like ratios earlier?

    5. Re:Widescreen by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yuppers, but we stood them short-side down and called them "portrait" displays: here.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Widescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh sure, "widescreen" is also going backwards.

      I'm still using 10 year old LCD's because they're 1600x1200. I don't care about the aspect, it's the resolution I want. These days you can't get a cheap monitor with 1200+ vertical pixels.

      I figured by now low-end monitors would be 1920x1440 at least and mid-range would be 2500x1900 or so. Instead we have shit low resolution "widescreen" monitors all over the place because for some reason watching a movie in the proper aspect ratio is more important than actually using the computer.

    7. Re:Widescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how I miss my 1400x1050 Thinkpad... It was replaced with a 1440x900 Dell and the difference was obvious. The Dell was better for watching movies. For working with text, which is what I do most, it was miles behind. I'm currently typing on a 1366x768 netbook. Things are going in the wrong direction...

      Yeah, I have an external 1920x1080 screen as well so I can have those extra pixels when I'm at home. But it really isn't a suitable format for a computer screen. Are there still traditional laptops available btw? I've had a hard time finding one.

    8. Re:Widescreen by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      These days you can't get a cheap monitor with 1200+ vertical pixels.

      Yes, you can. Virtually every screen can have more than this - mine has 1650 vertical pixels, and 1050 horizontal pixels. Just turn it 90 degrees. Seriously, for almost everything I do except watching videos, a 9:16 screen is better than a 16:9 screen. Actually, I have two vertical screens next to each other. I can wholeheartedly recommend it.

    9. Re:Widescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the last few 16:10 thinkpads were replaced by 16:9

      Though I think the X series is still 1280*800, but then you may well go for 1920*1080

    10. Re:Widescreen by xSquaredAdmin · · Score: 1

      You can still do that these days, though you'll probably need a non-stock monitor mount in most cases. One of the DBAs where I work uses 2x24" monitors running in portrait mode, 1080x1920.

      --
      Crushing dreams at the speed of sarcasm
    11. Re:Widescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What vertical space? Just ROTATE the screen.

      I'm typing this on a 4:3, that is now 3:4. And with a windscreen, you have even more vertical space! Of course people use their laptops, but laptops are not work environments - they are stopgap measures.

    12. Re:Widescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is why I use sidetabs too.
      If the sidetabs branch was updated to include this method too, even less space taken up at the top for me.
      Sidetabs also recently got 2 scrollers at the bottom.

      Now if only the person(s) that works on the keyboard interfacing would add scrollwheel support!
      Why the hell hasn't this been added yet? It's not exactly hard! You already detect scrollwheel events as it is!
      Come on Chromium devs, start adding some damn basic usability features already!

    13. Re:Widescreen by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I actually tried that. Too bad you lose the sub-pixel rendering of fonts that way. On some setups *cough*Apple*cough* where you can't turn it off, using a monitor sideways looks absolutely terrible.

  5. To cluttered. by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.

    1. Re:To cluttered. by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Steve, is that you?

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:To cluttered. by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      You can probably do the brushed metal theme yourself, for the rest here you go. Without it, I find firefox unusable.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    3. Re:To cluttered. by Hultis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The link was broken. Thankfully I had a soon-to-be-antiquated URL bar so I could see what was wrong and change it.

    4. Re:To cluttered. by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that! Try this one, and if slashdot is killing URLs in posts now (why not, they were 403 for an hour this morning) it's pentadactyl you seek.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    5. Re:To cluttered. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Steve, is that you?

      No. He never would have misused "to" in the article title.

      --
      That is all.
    6. Re:To cluttered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve, is that you?

      Oddly, Safari has one of the most traditional UIs among browsers. Standard menu bar (optional, off by default on Windows, non-optional on Mac), tabs subordinate to the window/title bar, full URL bar including protocol (http://...)

      But yeah, Apple, so, it sux, lol.

    7. Re:To cluttered. by rvw · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.

      Just close your macbook and you're done!

    8. Re:To cluttered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... An aluminium tray?

    9. Re:To cluttered. by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.

      Steve, is that you?

      This.

      The Onion can still make me laugh as well as cry...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    10. Re:To cluttered. by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else.

      Reminds me of Black & White, where actions were all performed by flailing the mouse in patterns. While there reminders at the corner of the screen telling you what the gestures are, clicking on them didn't make them act like a button.

    11. Re:To cluttered. by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      F11?

    12. Re:To cluttered. by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for a UI that not only has no controls at all, but decides what I might like to see next for me. Would be similar to continuous streaming videos. Advertisments could be in "breaks".

      Perhaps allow me to choose from a number of 'channels' to provide the illusion of choice.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    13. Re:To cluttered. by SBFCOblivion · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I've been a fan of vimperator for a long time now and had no idea a bunch of the primary devs forked a new project.

    14. Re:To cluttered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UI deduces the desired URL from the patterns of keyboarding and mouse movements used on other applications. Just don't get frustrated on the job while the boss is looking over the shoulder, ever!

    15. Re:To cluttered. by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.

      It's pretty much been done.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    16. Re:To cluttered. by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Of course he would've. Why use two o's when you can get the same sound from only one?

      Minimalism, baby, that's so SJ.

    17. Re:To cluttered. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're kidding, but surf has exactly what you describe:http://surf.suckless.org/.
      Its actually really cool.

  6. Belly up to the URL Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use the data from the URL bar.
    I need it for my job. It is part of the required sourcing for research.

    1. Re:Belly up to the URL Bar by mistiry · · Score: 1

      So, uh, don't use Chrome?

    2. Re:Belly up to the URL Bar by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Even simpler - don't choose the option to hide the URL bar. Problem solved.

  7. If my clients are any indication few will notice by grapeape · · Score: 1

    Half of my clients seem to think typing something in google is how to get around on the internet. I still have to regularly explain bookmarks, favorites, etc and when troubleshooting half of the time they cant actually tell me the URL they are having trouble reaching or getting to work in their browser because all they do is type the name of the place in google, this change will simply help facilitate that ignorance. If it was infallible I wouldn't have a problem with it but search results vary and nearly every spyware infection and rootkit I have had to remove tends to come from clicking on the first thing that comes up on a search.

  8. F*cking by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 0

    stupid.

  9. chrome 14 to only work on google sites by alen · · Score: 0

    since google is sucking up all the world's information, there is no reason to leave google's servers

    1. Re:chrome 14 to only work on google sites by cameronl · · Score: 1

      Next interface: I want my thoughts sent directly to google's servers and google can decide what page to show me.

  10. Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder if I'll still be able to use the F6 shortcut to place the cursor in the address bar? Having to use the mouse to type in a web address would be enough to make me stop using chrome.

    1. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Cogita · · Score: 1

      I wonder if I'll still be able to use the F6 shortcut to place the cursor in the address bar? Having to use the mouse to type in a web address would be enough to make me stop using chrome.

      Thanks! That's a useful tidbit I didn't know about.

      --
      -- "The Price of Freedom of Speech, of Press, or of Religion is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
    2. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by weicco · · Score: 1

      You might want to try CTRL+d also. Much easier and faster than F6.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    3. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Informative

      F6? Who uses F6? Try ctrl+L

    4. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      F6? Who uses F6? Try ctrl+L. Stands for LINK.

    5. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to use two keys to do it instead of one?

    6. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which shortcut I use is beside the point. By the way, I use F6. It works in all browsers. Try your Ctrl+L in Internet Explorer and see what happens. I also use F5 instead of Ctrl+R. It is faster for me when developing because of how I switch windows and reload the page, Ctrl+F5 ( switch ), then F5 ( reload ). Again, you completely missed the point.

    7. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      Because your hand then doesn't have to leave the home row. Since you're focusing on the URL bar, you'll be typing anyway so ctrl-L is going to be (marginally) faster. I use ctrl-L all the time and the flow is much better than pressing F6.

    8. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by strength_of_10_men · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Ctrl-L in IE (as of IE8, at least) opens up an "open" dialog box, which is essentially the URL bar. What happens for you?

    9. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Alt+d.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    10. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always just use alt-F4

    11. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... A lot of people use F6, why would you want to hit two keys when all you need to do is hit one?

    12. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ctrl+L? Bah!! Try Alt+D.

    13. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also Control-L

    14. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CTRL + L?? Who uses that?? Try ALT + D

    15. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alt+d

    16. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by norminator · · Score: 1

      In IE8 (and earlier, I believe), Ctrl+L popped up an "Open" box. In IE9, it highlights the URL.

    17. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alt-D for easy one-handed action. Works in most browsers.

    18. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by SBFCOblivion · · Score: 1

      I always used alt+d back when I had an address bar.

    19. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      alt+d bitches

    20. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by RichM · · Score: 1

      Pff, ALT + D is the old school way.

    21. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous coward back again. Regardless of which you keyboard shortcut you use, the question is whether or not it will still pop and focus the location bar. It would be a shame if this change in Chrome resulting in having to use the mouse to get to the location bar.

      Also, I prefer to use F6 because it has the same exact behavior in all browsers. The open dialog box is not the same as highlighting the location bar.

    22. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ctrl+L? Who uses ctrl+L? Try alt+D

    23. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alt+D involves only one hand...

    24. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alt+D, all left hand, thank you very much.

    25. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by weicco · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry. Yes. Alt+d.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    26. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alt+D

    27. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      course you will. Auto-hiding the taskbar doesn't kill the Windows button on your keyboard, does it?

    28. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ctrl+L? Who uses ctrl+L? Try alt+D

    29. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ctrl+L Who uses ctrl+L? Try alt+D

    30. Re:Keyboard shortcut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean ALT-D ?

  11. Okay by bigsexyjoe · · Score: 1

    Okay, Chrome 13 has a flag to hide the URL bar. They've clearly spent hours of work enabling this behavior. While this story is less interesting because the feature is trivial and not even active by default, it is still very interesting because it's about a Google product. So thank you for the info.

  12. Forward, Back, Refresh. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    I kinda see why they are doing this. They are trying to make web browsers more like using an application vs. browsing. And in Web Applications Coding it so it can handle Forward, Back and Refresh, and links to the location bar adds complexity of your code. However it seems they are doing this at the expense of non-Web Applications. Eg. I went to Slashdot I saw this article. I clicked on the link read the content and hit the back button then hit comments.
    I would prefer a way for HTML to tell the browser that I am an application where I forbid the back and forward buttons to work on my tab (or have it go back to the external site that found it) Then just removing the feature

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  13. Industry standard interface design... (i.e. dumb) by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Direct understandable interfaces changed to obfuscated, hidden, over-engineered nonsense. Is Google now taking its cues from the MIcrosoft Office interface design team?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  14. Slashdot going down the drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully Chrome 13 will check for dupes!

    Oh, wait, this isn't a dupe..

    Well, maybe Chrome 13 will have an option to make the spell-checker mandatory - that will sure help the lazy editors!

    Oh, wait, the spelling is fine. Hmm.

    Well, maybe Chrome 13 will have a way to go the original source, not some 3rd-level blogging of a blog post!

    Oh, wait, it is the original...

    Well, maybe Chrome 13 will have a 'nerd' or 'stuff that matters' filter! That might stop Taco from posting these off topic, link grabbing, troll stories!

    Oh, wait, this is a tech story...

  15. Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberating by m_chan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are similar add-ons for Chrome, but Vimperator on Firefox is fabulous for my needs. Everything else looks a cluttered, redundant mess. I am despise the URL bar.

  16. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by rtaylor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now you get the point. Google Search is the official bookmark system for Chrome and nobody needs to know the URL because you can always find the best information by punching keywords into your bookmark system.

    --
    Rod Taylor
  17. Phishing trip by Candid88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a guaranteed fraud magnet.

    1. Re:Phishing trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS a thousand times this....

    2. Re:Phishing trip by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought as well.

    3. Re:Phishing trip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of course the "average" user (i.e. those that don't read slashdot) is constantly checking the URL to make sure it is correct and secure, and they also know that something looking like http://paypa1.com.au/ is insecure.

    4. Re:Phishing trip by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      Oh please... the fucking idiots that fall for that shit aren't checking the address bar to begin with.

    5. Re:Phishing trip by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Right, but the people who DON'T fall for that shit ARE checking the address bar.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    6. Re:Phishing trip by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      If you don't fall for it, you're not loading the site to begin with. Yet alone checking the address bar. If we were arguing about the status bar showing the link, then I'd be right there with you. I do use the status bar frequently to check links. And I don't follow links to sites that I know I'm going to log in to (forums, facebook, etc. ).

    7. Re:Phishing trip by dealmaster00 · · Score: 1

      Not really...you should mouseover links to see where they point before clicking them. No need for a URL bar for that.

  18. The main reason by boristdog · · Score: 1

    The main reason I DON'T use Chrome is because I LIKE having my 12+ most-used sites in a drop-down URL bar, like every other major browser has. I don't want to click on pictures.

    Having to open a new tab, then having to figure out which of the 8 (only 8) pictures corresponds with the web site I am trying to get, then clicking it, is WAY more complicated. And sites that use similar color schemes are hard to tell apart at first glance in the little picture.

    Google, some of us are text-based (CLI forever) people, not picture-based people. That's the main problem I have with the OS-X interface, icons with no words under them, dammit!

    1. Re:The main reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a text-based interface, it's the URL bar. I can visit almost all of my regular sites by entering two of their characters (URL or Title doesn't matter) and pressing enter.

    2. Re:The main reason by Sepodati · · Score: 1

      You call yourself a text-based/CLI person, yet you're complaining there's no clickable dropdown menu for chrome? Control-T for new tab (focus goes to address bar) or Control-L to put focus in the address bar and start typing the website that you want. Since you're a text person, you know. Pretty sure websites are autocomplete for commonly used ones and a dropdown listing appears with others that you can scroll down to and select with the arrow keys. I would hope that Control-L still shows the address bar whether it's hidden or not in the new version.

      Or just add your 12 sites as bookmarks and they show up on the start page. Two clicks or Control-T and one click or start typing the name...

      What are you bitching about? That every browser doesn't have an icon in the exact same place that performs the exact same functionality so you don't have to use a slightly different method even though it takes up the same amount of time to do so? How did people like you migrate off of Windows 3.1 and handle all of the change?!?!

    3. Re:The main reason by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or you can just start to type the server name in the address bar and press Enter when Chrome autocompletes the rest. It's even quicker than looking around on a list. Or you can click to collapse the thumbnail view, and you get a list of the sites, next to their favicon. Scary! Confusing! nooooo!!!

    4. Re:The main reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just click the 'x' to the right of all the pictures, and it will collapse into a text-menu popup at the bottom of the window.

  19. And that's why Dr. Spork is sticking with Firefox by tepples · · Score: 1

    you have a browser that does what you want, but you're complaining because not every browser does everything you want?

    As for PCs, I took Dr. Spork's comment more in the sense of "And that's why I'm sticking with Firefox."

    does Google have a gun to your head to ensure that you use Chrome?

    Chrome OS uses Chrome as its shell, and I haven't seen any evidence that a Chrome OS device will let the user replace Chrome with another browser. Furthermore, the article hints that Android Browser will eventually merge with Chrome.

  20. Yes, more vertical screen space please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    All security issues aside:

    In TFA also other layout options are illustrated. Tabs in the sidebar, finally. With the widespread use of wide screen monitors, esp. for notebooks, I just _hate_ how vertical screen space is wasted by bloated interfaces like the MS ribbon. At least give us an option to move them to the side and align them vertically.

    So thank you Google UI engineers, good move

    1. Re:Yes, more vertical screen space please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can enable side tabs right now in about:flags. It's been that way for a while.

  21. What loss of pixels? by tepples · · Score: 2

    True, a 720p class monitor is a downgrade. But when you replace a 1280x1024 pixel monitor with a 1920x1080 pixel monitor, you gain vertical pixels, and you also gain the ability to show two pages side-by-side.

    1. Re:What loss of pixels? by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 2

      even then, 1920*1200 monitors (16:10) have been replaced by 1920*1080 (16:9) ones

    2. Re:What loss of pixels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even then, 1920*1200 monitors (16:10) have been replaced by 1920*1080 (16:9) ones

      Note to self: Buy a 1920x1200 LCD monitor this week. My 19" CRTs, which ran 1600x1200 10 years ago, can remain as secondary monitors, but my 21" CRT, with no lag, full color gamut, and 2048x1536, still beats anything I can buy in the LCD space. (I'd have to go 27" or 30" to get comparable pixel counts in the LCD space, and while they look great, I'd look like a bobblehead moving my neck/eyes to see it all, or I'll have to put the LCD too far away for comfort.)

    3. Re:What loss of pixels? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Where?

      I've never had any 1920x1200 monitors. My previous ones were all lower resolutions. Now I've upgraded to dual 1920x1080 24" monitors since they're so cheap. Sure, they're wider than all my previous ones, but I haven't lost any vertical pixels.

      If those extra 180 pixels are so important to you, you can still buy 1920x1200 monitors for about $300.

      If anyone has traded out a perfectly-good 1920x1200 monitor for a 1920x1080 monitor, that was their own dumb choice and they have no cause to complain.

    4. Re:What loss of pixels? by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      I meant in the market.

      It is difficult to find *any* monitors with a resolution higher than 1920*1080 (with the exception of 2 models, 1 by Dell another by Apple)

      Infact the highest resolution Dell lists on their website is 1920*1080, with the exception of a 30inch 2560*1600 monitor (http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=in&cs=indhs1&l=en&s=dhs&~topic=ultrasharp_monitor)

    5. Re:What loss of pixels? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. I just looked on Newegg yesterday and found a bunch of models in 1920x1200, and a bunch in even higher resolutions.

      Here's about 30 models:
      link

    6. Re:What loss of pixels? by marnues · · Score: 1

      Why sink to such a low level? There are plenty reasons why they would move from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080. I did the same, because I had the option of keeping my old standard monitor or taking the only monitor IT offered me. Those were the highest resolutions I could use. I have no plans to spend my own money (work will not pay for something I already have) for a larger monitor. There are excellent technical reasons as well. My desk has a bookshelf and I couldn't go over that limit anyway. Should I purchase a new desk as well to accomodate a new monitor? Also the screen real estate is not a huge deal. I have eventually acquired 3 of these wide screen monitors and have plenty of real estate. But that only gives me ample horizontal space. For large pages, worksheets, source code, etc. vertical space is quite important, but again not worth spending my money, especially if I must have a new desk. It'd be greatly appreciated if you could realize that other people have real needs that do not fit your own. It would add greater civility to your conversations, enabling greater technical depth and breadth.

    7. Re:What loss of pixels? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're not making any sense at all. If you have a 1920x1200 monitor already, why would you throw that out and replace it with a 1920x1080 monitor? Why wouldn't you just keep what you have?

      It'd be greatly appreciated if you could realize that other people have real needs that do not fit your own. It would add greater civility to your conversations, enabling greater technical depth and breadth.

      It'd be greatly appreciated if you could write in an understandable way. You haven't explained why anyone would willingly downgrade to a smaller monitor.

    8. Re:What loss of pixels? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I had a VAIO back when I was still buying Sony products which had a 1600x1200 display, in 16", it was a really nice display. By comparison my large 1920x1200 display is just the same but somewhat wider. And those are starting to get difficult to find, which is a shame because at 1920x1200, you can effectively partition it in half and still have a decent screen size.

    9. Re:What loss of pixels? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Who's using a resolution of 1280x1024 these days? I run my 10 year old CRT at 1600x1200.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:What loss of pixels? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Who's using a resolution of 1280x1024 these days?

      I am. So are plenty of other people who bought or whose employer bought an LCD monitor before 1080p HDTV took off.

    11. Re:What loss of pixels? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      But when you replace a 1280x1024 pixel monitor with a 1920x1080 pixel monitor, you gain vertical pixels, and you also gain the ability to show two pages side-by-side.

      You do realize that the 5:4 1280x1024 resolution was specifically selected and promoted for its ability to display two A4 documents side-by-side at the originally-standard 72 DPI with just enough extra space for some UI.. right?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:What loss of pixels? by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I guess you wanted to say: 1920x1440 (16:12) have been degraded to 1920*1080 (16:9) ones.

      The latter might be possibly of some use with a pivot... even 4x3 already suffers from having too much width compared to height. There's a reason almost all books use portrait not landscape.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    13. Re:What loss of pixels? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Throw it in the trash and get a superior CRT. Shouldn't cost more than $10.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    14. Re:What loss of pixels? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Where?

      You're not looking very hard are you? My NEC at home is 16:10 at 1920x1200, my Dell at work is 16:10, my laptop screen is 16:10...

      My parent's desktop is 16:9 and horrible to use. Reading a document on a screen with no vertical space is horrid.

    15. Re:What loss of pixels? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is just stupid. 16:9 refers to the aspect ratio, not the absolute vertical space. A 1920x1080 screen has precisely 1080 vertical pixels. I'm pretty sure my last screen before this had a resolution of 1280x1024, which was a pretty common resolution just a few years ago. 1080 > 1024. So, in upgrading from 1280x1024 to 1920x1080, I've gained 56 pixels. Not much (only 5.5%), but it's certainly no loss. In addition, I've gained 50% more horizontal space.

      Are you trying to tell me it's somehow worse to read a document on a 1920x1080 screen versus a 1280x1024 screen, just because the aspect ratio is wider? If so, then you're an idiot.

      Finally, there's nothing stopping you from turning the monitor on its side. Every popular OS now allows screen rotation.

      If you really like those extra 180 pixels that much, there's nothing stopping you from getting monitors with 1920x1200 resolution. My search of Newegg yielded about 30 of them.

    16. Re:What loss of pixels? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I wasn't the one complaining about not finding any, and as I said I use them myself.

      The argument wasn't about absolute resolution it was about popular options. 30 screens is a drop in a bucket considering the 16:10 aspect ratio came out on computer displays long before the 16:9 came out. This wouldn't be an issue at all if technology strives to new heights, however the world seemed to have stagnated on 1080p. The most common HD computer display was 120 pixels taller 5 years ago than it is now.

      Personally I can't wait for the world to get over this stupid "HD" limit. Computer screens are not TVs. Currently screens with resolutions higher than 1920x1200 are prohibitively expensive.

      As for the stupid wide aspect ratio, this would be much less of a problem if vertical screen space wasn't taken up by useless stuff, and it looks like Google is actually taking good steps to fix this. Unlike say Microsoft who's new start menu is taller than previous versions of windows, and who's new Ribbon bar is taller than the toolbars in previous versions of Office. The screens may have more vertical resolution, but why does it seem like there's now a lot less space!

    17. Re:What loss of pixels? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The most common HD computer display was 120 pixels taller 5 years ago than it is now.

      I'm not so sure about this. 5 years ago, I had monitors with 1280x1024 resolution. Heck, just 2 years ago, I had a 17" monitor at work with that resolution, along with a slow 8-year-old PC, and it took quite a while before management finally bought us new PCs to do development work for the new product line they were all excited about. Yes, there may have been plenty of 1920x1200 screens out there, but how common were they, and how much did they cost? I'm pretty sure lower resolutions were more common because they were more economical, but today, you can pick up a 24" LED-backlit 1920x1080 screen for just over $200. Could you get a 1920x1200 screen for that price 5 years ago? I doubt it.

      In short, the metric you need to be looking at is pixels per dollar. Yes, a 1920x1080 screen sucks compared to a 1920x1200 screen, but it's a big improvement over a 19" 1280x1024 screen, because it's basically 1 and a half of them.

      And you're right, screens with higher resolution are pretty expensive, but let's keep things in perspective. According to Newegg, I can get a 27" DoubleSight 2560x1440 monitor for $840, or an HP S-IPS 30" 2560x1600 monitor for $1220, or a Dell 30" 2560x1600 for $1380. Yes, those are high prices compared to $200-250 for a 24" 1920x1080 that is common now, but my first monitor back in 1991 was a 14" NEC that did 1024x768, and at the time, that was considered very high resolution. That monitor cost about $600, in 1991 dollars (back when gas cost about a dollar a gallon, and rents were much cheaper than they are now). In today's dollars, that's probably $1200 or more. So, when you look at the actual costs of monitors, I don't see that you're getting less for your dollar now, unless I've missed something.

      Yes, the HD-format monitors have become very popular, but that's mainly because of economies of scale: they can use the same manufacturing processes to make HD-format panels as TVs, so it makes these monitors cheaper, and they sell more as a result. But I imagine things will change in the future and people will want even larger monitors, like those 30" ones, for their desktop systems, and this will drive prices down. It's hard to say whether the popular monitors in 5 years or so will be 16:9 or something taller, however: the thing driving the cheapness of the 16:9 monitors is the commonality with TVs. But TVs are limited to 1920x1080 at the very largest, because that's the specification of the ATSC standard. They could increase that (after all, a higher resolution would look nicer on a 60" or 72" or larger TV), but look how long it took them to finally ditch NTSC and give us something better. They probably wouldn't even be able to do it for over-the-air TV because the standard is in place now, the radio spectrum allocated, etc., and higher resolution would require even more bandwidth which isn't plentiful. They could make up some kind of addition to the standard where only cablecos or other non-OTA services provide higher resolutions, but that's not likely: the cablecos already compress the hell out of their HD streams, making them look like crap. And look how long it took Blu-Ray to catch on, and even then DVD is still doing just fine even though its resolution sucks. So we might see the monitor makers break away from TV resolutions before too long, once there's enough demand for larger and higher-res screens for computers.

    18. Re:What loss of pixels? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      He's probably talking about the 1600x900 ard the 1366x768 screens. The 1920x1080 screens are tolerable, but the lower resolution 16:9 screens are useless.

    19. Re:What loss of pixels? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wouldn't waste my time with those at all. I don't know why anyone even buys them.

  22. Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by grahamtriggs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the most useful 'innovations' in browsers over the years - aside from tabs - has been the permanent search box, so that we can fire off searches really easily.

    Chrome combined this into the URL box as - reasonably - we don't need two separate boxes cluttering up the display.

    But now to hide the combi-box takes away the useful feature that we had - the ever-present search box.

    Plus, lets not forget that this is a phishers wet dream - you mean we can't see the url of the page we are looking at, just how it looks, and the title in tab? Hide the url, and it becomes a lot more difficult to be sure that the page you are submitting details to is the page that you intended.

    Although I'm currently a Chrome user, I will switch away if this change gets forced on me.

    1. Re:Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      This is about the URL bar, which sadly, doubles as a search box. I, for the record, HATE this feature so much, that I use firefox, and whenever I have a new install, seek out the about:config option that lets me disable it.

      I have never, in 15 years of being on the web, have typed into that bar and WANTED it to do a search. I have a permanent search box... NEXT TO the URL bar. That I love.

      Why?

      Simple, sometimes I setup web apps, or even develop them. When i type a url in, I want it to go there. if it can't, I want it to give me an error so I can correct it. Period. What I don't want it to EVER do, is immediately decide to "fix" what I typed, or take me somewhere else. Why? Well simple... so I can fix the url if I typed it wrong. If it changes, I have to start over.

      Yes, I can pull up an editor and interact with the browser only by cut and paste but.... how stupid is that?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by mirshafie · · Score: 1

      You can bring forth the location bar by activating the tab space. Presumably it will also appear by pressing F6 or Ctrl+L. Then you can type in an URL or search phrase just like before. This does not require any extra clicks. But it does imply that you're not clicking the address bar itself, which might be confusing interface-wise, but offers other advantages. (One advantage is that the location bar will be more narrow, meaning that Privacy, Bookmark and Search controls will be easier to spot.)

      I agree that it is useful to keep an eye on the location bar. In fact I will most probably keep the location bar with my configuration, just as I activate it in file managers that hide them by default. But I firmly believe that most people will find Chrome's new interface to be much better, if they implement it. I highly doubt that Joe Average regularly checks the URL for possible phishy business, or that he even can tell it apart from a legitimate URL. That's what phishing filters are for.

      What Chrome needs now is a visual switch between search engines. Keywords are great (although they could do with some improvement, Konqueror style), but most people have a hard time typing and looking at the screen at the same time. These are the same people that will never install an extension for their browser, so in the name of tech-illiterates everywhere I demand a Search Switcher!

    3. Re:Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by grahamtriggs · · Score: 1

      It's actually not that bad in Chrome. If what you've typed looks enough like a url, then it will simply try to resolve and give you an error page if it can't. A search will only be performed for something that doesn't look like a url.

      And even if it does do a search, you don't have to start over - the results page will have box that contains query, ie. what you typed into the combi-box. Fix it there, and 'search', and Google will direct you to where you wanted to be.

      Firefox is actually worse, because if it doesn't like the url, it will try to 'auto correct' it, by putting www. and/or .com on the domain. So then you've got more work to fix it.

    4. Re:Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It displays when you want it. Press ^L and it's there. Deselect it and it vanishes. It's currently a setting in Canary (and a setting you have to enable in about:flags, at that).

      They're not forcing anything. Don't want it? Don't turn it on. But also learn what it is before making the decision.

    5. Re:Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Oh nice... I still need to check out chrome. I have mostly stuck with firefox for noscript and requestpolicy, both of which I feel are necessary, though I hear chrome has implemented its own noscript feature, which is better than nothing.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Really, Really, Really Bad Idea by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I have never, in 15 years of being on the web, have typed into that bar and WANTED it to do a search. I have a permanent search box... NEXT TO the URL bar. That I love.

      I really just want to overload the protocol. google://SEARCH should search google, etc. Let me configure my pseudo-protocols and I'm happy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  23. Faster JS or not... by dnebin · · Score: 1

    The day they drop the address bar is the same day I stop using Chrome.

  24. Re:Industry standard interface design... (i.e. dum by 0123456 · · Score: 1

    Direct understandable interfaces changed to obfuscated, hidden, over-engineered nonsense. Is Google now taking its cues from the MIcrosoft Office interface design team?

    Sadly, everyone seems to be trying to ape Windows these days. Last night I told my Ubuntu laptop to shut down and Gnome gave me some stupid Windows-style 'Program Unknown is not responding' dialog box. Like I give a crap, kill -15 and shut down.

    Ugh. If I wanted to run Windows I'd be running Windows.

  25. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I've noticed this behavior in various users (and even otherwise-knowledgeable colleagues!) too. Drives me insane, why would you ever do that? If you know you want to go to youtube, typing youtube.com in your address bar is easier than going to Google, then searching for "youtube", then clicking. Or better still, put a damn bookmark in place.

    </rant>

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  26. location.replace(some_other_url) by tepples · · Score: 1

    I would prefer a way for HTML to tell the browser that I am an application where I forbid the back and forward buttons to work on my tab (or have it go back to the external site that found it)

    Then add an event listener for clicks on your links that does {location.replace(some_other_url); return false}.

    1. Re:location.replace(some_other_url) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually don't want a return false because that cancels the bubbling of events (which you may want).

      the listener you're looking for is
      {location.replace(some_other_url); if ( (arguments[0]||window.event).preventDefault) (arguments[0]||window.event).preventDefault(); else window.event.returnValue = false; }

  27. Foxes and dogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although Chrome never hit my taste to begin with, I would still prefer to know the specific page I'm on without having to guess.

    I can only imagine how this "feature" will be put to use by hackers and such. Doppelganger-facebook? Yikes. Improbable, yeah, but you already know that people are stupid enough to fall for it.

  28. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Tikkun · · Score: 1

    When your system doesn't map to the brain of the user that needs to use it, you change the system. Expecting the user to change for the system is futile.

  29. It's called the Location Bar by WebManWalking · · Score: 2

    ... as in window.location.href. MS just had to be different, so they (and only they) call it the Address Bar. But please, not a third name.

    As for the change, I don't care as long as Control-L (Windows) or Command-L (Mac) * unhides it and selects all of the current page's URL, so that typing replaces it. That's the way power users type a new URL using only the keyboard anyway.

    * That's L, as in "Location Bar". Works in MSIE too, but without the current page's URL.

    1. Re:It's called the Location Bar by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Control-L (Windows) ... Works in MSIE too, but without the current page's URL

      Try Alt-D.

    2. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bar. You put URL's into it. That makes it a URL bar.

      (And before the grammar nazis go spooging all over themselves in a self-congratulatory fashion, yes, URL's is correct. I don't say "earl" like some idiot hick. The plural of L is L's.)

    3. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us Firefox users like to call it the Awesome Bar.

    4. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you possibly be more pedantic?

      Are we no longer allowed to use synonyms interchangeably?

      What's it called in Spanish? Would we be expected to use the exact same word in all languages because you like to pretend that your a command-line interpreter and not a human being?

      Sorry about violating your syntax, bro.

    5. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called the Address Bar. As in, "address". Like a website address. It's okay if you want to be a unique snowflake though.

    6. Re:It's called the Location Bar by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      I think Opera calls it the URL bar/Address bar, too. But who cares?

    7. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft called it the address bar before window.location even existed.

    8. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a power user hits F6

    9. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are a pedantic idiot.

      Google "location bar" vs "address bar." Address bar appears multiples of location bar. Add in "site:mozilla.org" or "site:slashdot.org" if you're curious.

      Wikipedia it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_bar

      Think colloquial. "What's the address of your website?" Have you EVER heard anybody say "What's the location of your website?"

      It's an address bar because address and location in the context of URLs is pretty darn synonymous, and the vast majority of people call it the address bar and refer to website addresses. To get your panties in a bind over this is merely the worst form of geek pedantry.

    10. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, let's stick with Alt+D, the key combination that currently selects the text in the URL/Location/Address bar in all major browsers.

    11. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think address bar is a better name, since it displays the address of the web-page, not the location of the person who wrote it or the server that stores it.

    12. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the type of pedantic nerd that drives me crazy. The type who gets so wrapped up in an (utterly irrelevant, yet fervently followed) belief that you'll go on a rant about how Microsoft is jerks for being different. The sad thing is, you're being pedantic, nobody cares, AND YOU'RE WRONG.

      I think you need to take a very close look at your life. Look at your reaction here and think how religious people respond to irrelevancies and differences of opinion. Congratulations, you're one of them.

      1) Chrome -- http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=95440

      "The address bar that sits at the top of the browser window (sometimes called the "omnibox") doubles as a search box"

      2) Opera -- http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/intro/layout/#opera_layout

      "1. Address field on the address bar"

      3) Safari -- http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html

      "Can’t remember the exact address for that website you visited the other day? Safari can. In the Smart Address Field," (ok, "Address Field" isn't exactly the same as "Address Bar" but it's closer than location bar)

    13. Re:It's called the Location Bar by afidel · · Score: 1

      Control-L means moving off the home row, F6 is easier =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    14. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not. That's a half-necessity that people tricked themselves into believing (see also 90's). The plural of L is Ls. The possessive of L is L's. Yes, Death Note teaches us that letters can be (nick)names.

    15. Re:It's called the Location Bar by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

      It matters if you have to provide simple instructions to your users in online help pages. Not having a consensus about what to call things results in needlessly complicated instructions that no one wants to read. Reload/Refresh, Location/Address, JavaScript/JScript, Cache/Internet Temporary Files, suffix/extension, Bookmarks/Favorites, Preferences/Internet Options, sheesh!!!

      Robin Williams used to say "Oh those French, they have a different word for everything". Nowadays it should begin "Oh those Microsoft products, ..."

    16. Re:It's called the Location Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fool you are. FIREFOX is the odd one out! But please do remain comfortable in your solipsistic and ignorant nerdrage zealotry.

      1) Chrome -- http://www.google.com/support/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=95440 [google.com]

      "The address bar that sits at the top of the browser window (sometimes called the "omnibox") doubles as a search box"

      2) Opera -- http://www.opera.com/browser/tutorials/intro/layout/#opera_layout [opera.com]

      "1. Address field on the address bar"

      3) Safari -- http://www.apple.com/safari/whats-new.html [apple.com]

      "Can’t remember the exact address for that website you visited the other day? Safari can. In the Smart Address Field," (ok, "Address Field" isn't exactly the same as "Address Bar" but it's closer than location bar)

  30. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod this up.

  31. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I've noticed this behavior in various users (and even otherwise-knowledgeable colleagues!) too. Drives me insane, why would you ever do that?

          Because it corrects spelling errors.

  32. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php

    Read the comments starting with oldest-first. It's either depressing or hilarious, depending on your view of life.

  33. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    The best ones (like my parents) are the ones who put "www.youtube.com" into the Google search bar on their browser that's about 2cm away from the address bar. And my mother is assistant manager of the IT dept at a major medical lab yet I can't get her to change...

  34. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

    Ow. My brain... ow.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  35. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternatively there is Pentadactyl a fork of that project. I move over as they were faster to provide Firefox 4 support.

  36. Merge Gnome and KDE by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 0

    Merge Gnome and KDE!

  37. Better be an option... by TavisJohn · · Score: 1

    I hope that there will be a setting to make the address bar always visible.

    It is a security risk to hide the address bar. A hacked website could re-direct you and you would not have a clue!

    With it hidden most people will have no real idea what website that they are on.
    Yea you can manually check, but who is going to do that on a regular basis?

    Besides that next to the address area are the icons for the add-ons I use all the time. Even with the address bar gone, I will not gain any screen real estate.

  38. No Url? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has no one ever heard of F11 you hit that button and bam you got full screen with no url bar anyway so why the update to do it automatically

  39. Sorry, wrong story by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Sorry, wrong story.

  40. bad for screenshots by hey · · Score: 1

    Now if you see a screenshot of a browser viewing a website you also see the URL (in the location bar).
    In Chrome you won't. This is bad. The URL is best thing about the internet.

    1. Re:bad for screenshots by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      So reenable it when you want to take a screen shot. Or don't disable it at all. This is an option, what's the problem here?

    2. Re:bad for screenshots by hey · · Score: 1

      Most people will just go with the default... that's the problem.

    3. Re:bad for screenshots by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      "Most people" who are specifically taking screenshots that feature the URL? Are you worried about the overall degradation of screenshots of websites across the web?

    4. Re:bad for screenshots by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but today's default is sometimes tomorrow's only available setting.

  41. So what's the flag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The feature has to be enabled via a flag in a recent Canary or nightly build version of Chrome 13. To activate teh hidden URL bar, users will also have to right-click a tab and select “Hide the toolbar”Besides killing the URL bar, the new feature also moves the tools menu, hides any extension and introduces new back/forward buttons."

    That's great and all, but the article completely leaves out what the required flag is to enable the feature....

  42. What a terrible idea by Millennium · · Score: 1

    As the article itself points out, this makes it harder to see the URL of a site you visit. Anything that makes it harder for users to carry out the most basic security precautions is a Very Bad Thing. Seriously. The phishers must be positively drooling over this new user interface.

    Interface minimalism is all well and good, but there are some things that need to be shown constantly. The URL bar is one of them.

  43. It's all good by mgmartin · · Score: 1

    I still prefer the separate process per tab Chrome provides over the alternatives. And, as long as I can still enable the location bar if I want to, it's all good.

  44. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google would prefer it this way, the longer they can keep you on their site, the greater the chance of increased ad revenue.

  45. An Attempt At Apple-style Minimalism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google usually does wax minimalistic in it's approach to design.

    But in this case I think they are trying to out-apple apple

    This is like the way Apple refuses to ship its machines with a two button mouse, or two button track pad.

    There's a point when stubborn adherence to minimalism becomes annoying and counter-productive, and even ostentatious in it's own passive-aggressive way.

  46. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by grapeape · · Score: 1

    I would completely agree if it actually were the "best information", unfortunately with google and most other search engines it doesn't work that way. All to often the results are more the result of rank manipulation than by actual quality of information. Sometimes I think the biggest advancement in search engines would be for one to simply add a checkbox that allows the user to never see search results from certain sites again...if I could banish things like fixya, answers.yahoo.com and stuff like that it would cut my average search time in half.

  47. More search results, more revenue by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    If they hide the URL bar, most people (as many already do) will search Google for a site they already know the URL of. A lot of the users of our site type our URL into Google's search and then click the top link. Google doing this, just makes them serve up more search results ending up in more revenue for Google.

    1. Re:More search results, more revenue by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      How is this different from the current behavior that searches Google if you don't type a valid URL into the URL bar?

    2. Re:More search results, more revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, as the combined URL/Search bar in chrome will take you straight to the site if you enter a valid URL

  48. Why not hide the rest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eg. F11

  49. Browsing by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    The idea is appealing, but in this day of high resolution screens it's largely irrelevant. Years ago, when I was browsing in 640x480 and then 800x600 trying to fit as much content on the screen as I could was important. Back then I browsed with the window maximized. Nowadays my browsers are windowed. Sites are so much longer than the vertical height of the window that an extra 40-50 pixels is irrelevant. The vertical orientation of tablets also makes this pointless.

    The one environment where this helps is on laptops. So many laptops today are equipped with excessively wide screens that offer little vertical resolution.

    But then, I'm sure that the real motivation for this is to make the browser more transparent and enhance the whole "app" experience.

  50. Re:Industry standard interface design... (i.e. dum by jandrese · · Score: 1

    If you want Linux run Slackware.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  51. Fabulous by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The same amount of brilliance as Windows helpfully offering to hide the extensions of known file types. #DoNotWant

  52. http://www.google.com/ponies ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I navigated to google.com/ponies and my hopes and dreams were irrevocably crushed.

  53. URL add-ons. by Random2 · · Score: 2

    And then we'll see add-ons for chrome that display the URL.

    Full circle!

    --
    "Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
  54. i'm sorry by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    brushed aluminum skin is not an option

    however, you can get chrome plating

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  55. While we're at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The windows taskbar takes up too much space, lets get rid of it. Netbooks are too sluggish running lots of programs anyways. If you want to run another program close the one you are running, we can call the next version of windows for networks "Microsoft Disk Operating System."

  56. Is Google becoming AOL? by DaveOrZach · · Score: 2

    If memory serves me right, didn't the early versions of AOL work a similar way as the Chrome browser? A user types in a keyword into the AOL broswer and AOL matched the keyword with a URL, website pops up. A user types a keyword in Chrome and Chrome searches your history or uses Google's search engine to match the keyword with a URL, website pops up. I know you can change the search engines in Chrome but the end result is the same; the user doesn't have to know how the Internet works to use the Internet.

    History repeats itself.

    1. Re:Is Google becoming AOL? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Interesting... when you think about it, Google is positioning itself to be the new AOL -- the only difference being that its revenue is ad supported instead of subscription supported.

    2. Re:Is Google becoming AOL? by DaveOrZach · · Score: 1

      AOL was an ISP. It was easy to copy and improve on AOL's early business model and ISPs become a community in a very short time. Even today, no one wants to become a "dump pipe," just look at how the cable companies and cellular networks try to protect their turf with long term contracts and bundling their data service with something else (TV, movie, phone, etc.) AOL didn't know how to evolve, AOL died.

      Google is an advertiser/data miner. It is very hard to copy or capture Google's data. Google's business model is secure because of extreme high cost to enter the market. The only thing Google has to worry about is users giving their data to someone else. That is why they made Android and Chrome; prevents MS and Yahoo from gathering user data. Facebook, not Apple, is the only real threat to Google.

    3. Re:Is Google becoming AOL? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      AOL was not an ISP -- they were a nation-wide bulletin board. The ISP thing started as an afterthought, although it eventually consumed most of their company. Their claim to fame compared to other BBS systems such as CompuServe, FidoNet, EarthLink, etc. was that they had easy to access data, communications and discussion groups, aimed at the average person via a point and click interface.

      AOL had secondary revenue streams through advertising and data mining (yes, if you signed up for AOL, you got a bunch of junk mail related to your AOL interests). Since AOL was mostly a walled garden, their data was also VERY HARD to copy. Until the advent of the World Wide Web and commercial Internet, it was also very costly to enter the market they were in, which is why they were one of the only players.

      AOL eventually failed because people discovered that they could get far MORE from the Internet than they could from AOL, and it was almost as easy. The only way AOL could fight this was by opening portions of their walled garden to the Internet, which saved them in the short term but doomed them in the long term.

      This is why AOL switched from the AOL program to an AOL-branded web browser that had embedded AOL-only content; it prevented the Internet at large from gathering their user data while at the same time allowing their customers to access Internet-only data.

      So what we really need to do is find a parallel threat to Google that the Internet was to AOL. You're right that it's likely something like Facebook (although I think Facebook's lifespan is limited -- it will more likely be some other service that causes people to abandon Google).

      Think about it this way: AOL = Walled Garden. Internet = Wilderness. AOL opens portal to Internet. AOL is overrun. Google creates method to tame Internet while capturing data for useful re-use. ??? = New Wilderness. Google opens portal to ???. Google is overrun, and loses data pseudo-monopoly.

      Neither Facebook nor Apple could be ??? here; it has to be some other convergence technology. However, since Google has proven they're very adaptable, they might do a better job than AOL at leveraging the new convergance too.

    4. Re:Is Google becoming AOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This option does ONE THING: it causes the location bar only show up when you have it selected. They have not eliminated the location bar/Omnibar. They've not replaced anything. They've not taken away anything. The location bar still exists and functions the same way it did before this change.

      (Okay, two things. The location bar is also shorter than the normal, full one.)

  57. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Half of my clients seem to think typing something in Google is how to get around on the internet.

    So. Bing/Google/Yahoo are the new AOL. Just great... sigh.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  58. Firefox by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    I hope firefox doesn't go copying the Chrome interface further, removing the address bar as well...

  59. and just what by nimbius · · Score: 1

    do we seek to achieve? if i no longer have immediate access to the navigation bar, i no longer have access to immediately navigate away from a site ive visited. I cant see direct changes or actions in the gets and posts im using as a developer. I place my trust implicitly in google to detect and proactively handle threats to my browsing as i literally have no immediate idea what site im viewing (google.com vs google.harbin.haxxor.ch.)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  60. How many of you see it now? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

    Yeah, 50 pixes on a 4" smart phone screen when they unify it with Android... That's a pretty big deal. Do you see a URL bar on your smartphone now?

    Yeah, it's hidden on phones, with no problem at all. To get full Chrome on a phone, it needs the ability to hide too.

    Anyone who is clamoring about how horrible this is must not own a touch screen phone.

    --
    I8-D
    1. Re:How many of you see it now? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      On a smart phone the URL bar is not using 50 pixels. It's maybe 10 pixels high.

    2. Re:How many of you see it now? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Safari does this on the iPhone. It does not, last time I saw it (which granted, it's been a while) do it on a PC, or presumably a Mac.

      You also don't go around touching the screen on your PC to click things, unless you have a specialized setup. Phone users seem to get along just fine regardless.

      I know the phone is supposed to supplant the desktop in some idealized world (I'll believe it when I see it), but that doesn't mean the desktop needs to look and act like a phone.

      There isn't such a thing as "full chrome" on a phone, or a PC for that matter. Chrome for PC uses a lot of code that the phone doesn't, and vice-versa. The important bits (rendering engine, etc.) will be shared, but the GUI code is going to be different based on its platform.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    3. Re:How many of you see it now? by mrrudge · · Score: 1

      The url bar on iPhone is about 60px high, tool bar at the bottom is about 45px. 10px is just about enough room to get a legible line of text with no borders/chrome/spacing.

  61. Fedora 15... ditch Gnome instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mostly agreed, but I don't understand sticking with Fedora 14. Do you expect Gnome to come to their senses and provide a full backward-compatible desktop in the future? If not, maybe it is time to try a different environment such as XFCE on Fedora 15? That's the way I am leaning, after also trying Fedora 15 defaults on a spare laptop. My main concern is that they seem to migrate more system functionality into Gnome every year: power management, network management, device hotplugging, etc. I want to keep my system without being tied to Gnome.

    Oddly enough, I only ever started using Gnome because it was getting too hard to maintain my fvwm environment on Red Hat and early Fedora versions. I've been fighting every Gnome upgrade ever since, as it required a treasure hunt to restore the most important features each time.

    I have simple needs: multiple monitors, virtual desktops in a 2D grid, hotkey switching between them with ctl-arrow keys, lots of XTerms with proper session management to remember their sizes/locations, focus-follows-mouse, raise-on-decoration-click (not raise on interaction), and an easily reconfigured background menu or auto-hiding menu bar to get to some frequent tasks w/o wasting screen space. I never minimize windows, and I infrequently move them between virtual desktops when I change my mind about groupings of tasks.

  62. Is that supposed to be something new? by lahvak · · Score: 1

    Lynx never had no steenking URL bar, and it always worked just fine without it.

    --
    AccountKiller
  63. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by marnues · · Score: 1

    I believe hubris is a better word choice than futile.

  64. Google is a data mining and marketing company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome is a data collection application with a browser as a front-end. Google wants all input to be entered in the Google Search bar for the purpose of data collection. Using the address bar for direct navigation does not help Google's data collection efforts. I was surprised when I saw the address bar in the first version of Chrome. My only comment is to ask what took Google so long to remove the address bar.

    For those needing some background, there is a company called AC Neilsen that data mines television viewing. They are well known for hooking up a black box to a family's television in order to collect the TV viewing data. Chrome, Gmail, etc. are nothing more than data collecting black boxes. If you enjoy the applications - great. Google will make their applications as enticing as needed in order to get you to use it.

  65. Quantum Leap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be happy at last, when they stop showing the URL and tabs completely and send them by e-mail...

  66. Is this a good idea for security? by Bloodwine77 · · Score: 1

    If people are conditioned to not having a URL bar, then won't it make it easier to set up phishing scam sites?

    Google is really going off the reservation with respect to minimalism.

  67. The value of self-esteem by mirshafie · · Score: 1

    This is brilliant. It is so much more elegant. It shows you exactly what you need to see when you need to see it, the rest of the time you don't have to bother.

    I want it widely known that I have some blueprints for this EXACT design that I came up with in 2009, for Firefox 4. Google should pay me! Not that I ever published anything at the time, because my real friends laughed at me and I was afraid you internet people would too, but I can see now that the tables have turned.

  68. Monumentally stupid by Dracos · · Score: 1

    Unsavvy users already don't know what the URL bar is for, but that's no reason to hide it from them. Google should instead be doing users a favor by forcing them to pay attention to it when necessary.

    If nothing else, the URL bar is one of the best security features a browser has, especially against phishing attacks and other URL tricks. However, if the user can't see it or doesn't understand it, then it is useless.

  69. sure, but what about the tabs? by jebrew · · Score: 1

    Can we have the tabs autohide the way you can have the windows taskbar autohide? Then the web takes up the entire screen...or should I just hit f11?

  70. Infected 13 times. by earls · · Score: 1

    Since I have enabled this feature I have been duped, misled, infected and raped 13 times (each). Clear evidence of your righteousness.

  71. Summary is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a Chrome engineer. This summary is wrong. The Compact Nav mode is an experiment we're testing. There are no plans right now to turn it on by default for Chrome 13 or any other Chrome release, and in fact there are currently far too many issues with it for us to fix in the M13 timeframe even if we wanted to turn it on by default.

  72. How about 2560 x 1600 ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  73. Alienate adopters as if they had no choice? by vlueboy · · Score: 1

    Current users are geeks and more likely to switch back to a closed browser as soon as free [as in beer] ones start "doing it wrong!" Firefox's been alienating us since version 3.

    That is the a reason Chrome grew so quickly, regardless of whether you personally hated the awesomebar or not. For a shamelessly well-known profit motive, Chrome starts alienating everyone, in turn. Is it a wonder that people will just return to FF? Oh, wait, there are MANY other choices, like Safari / Opera (beer free).

    Most non-geek Chromers will just damn the torpedoes and take the IE bullet already sitting like every patient drug dealer who knows former "clients" eventually return regardless of the circumstance. IE-based corporations like it because it doesn't sport trendy GUIs.

  74. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    The system has worked just fine for countless other users who are capable of logical, rational thought processes. Just because a bunch of morons now have access to computers doesn't mean we need to change them.

    Would you say the same thing about cars? Or ships? Or dangerous power tools? That we need to change them to suit people who are too stupid to handle dangerous items responsibly (where changing them probably means removing features or abilities that make the tool useful in the first place)?

    The fact is, people are NOT equal. Some are stupider than others, and some just can't handle doing certain tasks in a safe manner. Instead of trying to change the machines to suit a minority of users who have no business using the machines, it makes more sense to just keep the machines out of their hands. There's a lot of people, for instance, who are alcoholics. They cannot operate cars safely. What do you propose for these people? That we make cars more crash-proof, so they can wreck at 75mph without getting hurt? Of course, this won't help any hapless pedestrians they run into. How about just not allowing alcoholics to drive in the first place? That's what rational civilizations do; only people who are responsible are allowed to drive, the rest have to take public transit. (Even better civilizations make it so public transit is actually the better option, so that only people who need to drive, like for work (delivery trucks, etc.), do so, as driving is an unavoidably dangerous task that can never be made truly safe as long as humans are in control.)

    Here's another example: airplanes. Have you ever gotten in a cockpit? The controls are quite complex, between engine gauges, navigation controls, etc. How many people do you know who could handle that without any training at all? Probably none. So should we make airplanes easier to operate so that people need no training to get in and start flying a 747? No, it's simple: we don't allow anyone to operate one without extensive (and expensive) training, and we trust those who are trained and skilled to fly the rest of us around.

  75. Pendtadactyl - an alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pentadactyl is a Vimperator fork. I started using it as they were quicker to bring out Firefox 4 support.

  76. Bangladeshi by SoftwareBd · · Score: 1

    I like Hide url from Google Chrome browser http://www.bangladeshi-actresses.co.cc/

    1. Re:Bangladeshi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ew, nobody wants to look at Bangladeshi women.

  77. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Hatta · · Score: 1

    this change will simply help facilitate that ignorance.

    I think that's actually Google's intention. Make a browser the ignorant can use.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  78. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by davek · · Score: 1

    Here here. It took a few hours to get used to vimperator, but now I can't live without it. Full navigation of websites without using the mouse is a cool thing, and the ctrl-i command to open up a gvim window on an edit box is awesome when preparing forum, trac, or wiki posts. Instant "y" command for copying the current URL, "p" to open the URL or search term currently in the clipboard, and lots of other useful shortcuts.

    In my browser, the URL is tucked in a small line down at the bottom, there if I need it but otherwise out of mind. If that's the way chome is headed with its UI, then I think it's a Good Thing.

    --
    6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
  79. From the first sentence of the article... by YK9000 · · Score: 1

    "The URL bar in Chrome is still active by default, but there is a flag to hide it." And "To activate teh [sic] hidden URL bar, users will also have to right-click a tab and select “Hide the toolbar”" So all this debate around this being a bad idea in general because _you_ aren't willing to try it out, or comments with titles like "Is Google becoming AOL?" miss the point hardcore.

  80. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by Hatta · · Score: 1

    If you really want a hard core browsing experience, try UZBL.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  81. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by CCarrot · · Score: 1

    http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php

    Read the comments starting with oldest-first. It's either depressing or hilarious, depending on your view of life.

    Tried the link, but got tired of trying to figure out which of the 25 third party scriptlets enabled the comments view through NoScript.

    No thanks.

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  82. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by afidel · · Score: 1

    There's a Chrome Extension for that, it's called personal blocklist by Google and it allows you to block URL's from future searches.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  83. vimperator by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    does this already

    and gives you handy vim commands to control your browser

  84. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    I wholeheartedly agree. It took me some days to fully get the hang of it, but now i can't browse without it any more. I love the control you have and the speed with which you can browse the intarweb.

    I came across it by accident because i just wanted a way to kill firefox using :wq :)

  85. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by Errtu76 · · Score: 1

    Another big feature is that when somebody else tries to use your browser, they will give up frustrated by the fact that "nothing works like usual" :D

  86. Move away from DNS resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it possible Google is trying to get users to stop using a browser to reach sites directly through a URL and always default to reaching them through a search? You don't need that much space for a URL if all you use is a couple of keywords in a search to reach your destination.

  87. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by ekgringo · · Score: 1

    Google has had this functionality for a few months now. You have to log in to your Google (or Gmail) account and it will allow you to filter results exactly the way you describe.

  88. Good for netbooks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and any small screen device. As it is on my netbook I have my taskbar on the side for maximum vertical space.

  89. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by filthpickle · · Score: 1

    Here you go

    Haven't tried it, but I am going to.

  90. This is precisely the problem: users by Benfea · · Score: 1

    I have a hard enough time explaining to my users what a URL is, what all the stuff in the domain name means, and why it is important to pay attention to it. The users who can't or won't do this are precisely the ones likely to hide the URL bar (assuming they figure out how to do so, which is a stretch for most of them).

    As I read this article, the feature is not set by default, but the mere existence of it fills me with fear.

  91. Google ad revenue boost? by psyph3r · · Score: 1

    So what...now I would need to use "google" to go to any site I want if I only used chrome? This sounds like a huge boost to their ad revenue streams. I don't understand why you would want your url bar gone...what if I want to access my router, my ip camera, or an ftp site. Granted, there are many other ways. This just seems silly. They better provide an option to turn the url bar back on, like the menu in firefox 4. However, I don't care that much, since I don't use chrome.

  92. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 1

    Thank you, good sir or madam. That was amazing.

    --
    -----[0_o]-----
    We are not amused.
  93. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er...
    The location bar is the preferred way to search in Chrome. Also, their bookmarking is better than most browsers. Not sure how any of that drives you back to a search engine more than any other browser.

  94. Call me old-fashioned by gulikoza · · Score: 1

    ...but where is the trend with address bars going?

    Browsers no longer show you the address bar or hide the real address from you. How can you see get parameters in a so called user-friendly address?

    You tell people to type the address and they type it in the search engine or some toolbar they have installed. They don't even know where the address bar is...that's real progress. People type facebook in the google search and click the first result...it's a lot faster to type face(...) in the address bar and let autocomplete handle the rest, but no, search engine is obviously much better.

    Does anybody remember times, when browsers used to return real http error to the user...you immediately knew if there was a problem with the dns or connection timeout or perhaps 'Page not found'. Now you only get 'There was some problem with the page. Do you want FOO to check and diagnose why the page does not display? Make sure your cable is connected and blahblahblahblah...'. Or even better, it redirects you to some search engine that was installed on the machine. Did you mean to type BAR instead of FOO? You have no idea if you've misspelled the address or the server is not responding or wth is going on.

    That's not progress for me, that's stupidity and laziness. Post addresses and zip codes are hard to remember too, but you don't write 'search FOOBAR on google and send it to the first result' on the letter you (snail)mail, do you?

  95. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by jimicus · · Score: 1

    You're probably underestimating the number ;)

    Looking at Google Insights, the top 10 searches in the UK for the last 30 days are:

    1. facebook
    2. youtube
    3. bbc
    4. hotmail
    5. you
    6. google (WTF?!)
    7. ebay
    8. mail
    9. yahoo
    10. weather

  96. Re:Industry standard interface design... (i.e. dum by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

    When I watch parents, friends and people at work use a browser, they hardly ever use the location bar. The only things they do really use are the back button and bookmarks. Most people do go to the same handful of sites all the time anyways.

    If there were an easy way to keep that functionality and optionally auto-hide the location bar, I think that would be useful. Especially with laptop display geometry, a lot of us would get more utility reclaiming the space and hiding the unused browser junk.

    And no, I was not a huge fan of the ribbon. ;)

  97. Chrome 13 Hides URL Bar by man_the_king · · Score: 1

    Chrome 14 will hide the Browser entirely!

  98. Overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to enable a launch-time flag in the 'this might fuck things up' options area. Even then you have to tick a context menu option to actually hide the bar. But let's all panic and say it hides it by default, because that generates headlines.

  99. Maybe try this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Press: CTRL L

    If they can do that right, then (in Firefox) it highlights the correct box. Then they can just start typing. Good luck!

    1. Re:Maybe try this... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      Press: CTRL L

      If they can do that right, then (in Firefox) it highlights the correct box. Then they can just start typing. Good luck!

      Thanks!

      I typically shy away from keyboard shortcuts with my parents, considering that they still have trouble using the Shift key when entering a password (yes, their passwords are either all lowercase or, with CAPS LOCK on, ALL UPPERCASE). They've kinda caught on to the idea of CTRL-C and CRTL-V, though, so that may be an option for our next 'troubleshooting' session...;)

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    2. Re:Maybe try this... by jubei · · Score: 1

      It might be better to use ALT+D than to use CTRL+L.

      ALT+D works in both IE and Firefox.

  100. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    ctrl+k youtube enter does the job with fewer buttons, and has the side benefit of making several machines on the internet furiously discuss my intention, all for the benefit of my laziness. That alone makes it worth it.

  101. Ctrl+L is not the same as F6 in IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly, it opens the "open" dialog box. It is not essentially the URL bar. The URL bar is the URL bar, the "open" dialog box is the open dialog box.
    F6 highlights the location bar. If you want the same result as other browsers, then you use F6.

    1. Re:Ctrl+L is not the same as F6 in IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OPEN dialog box allows you to type in a URL. When you press the enter key, the box closes and takes you to that web page specified by the URL you entered. How is that not "essentially" the URL bar? It acts exactly like the URL bar. What am I missing here? Seems to me you're splitting hairs just to be technically right.

  102. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by lucian1900 · · Score: 1

    Sadly, vimium is nowhere near vimperator.

  103. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by psiclops · · Score: 1

    So we should ban people that don't use bookmarks from using the internet?

    --
    i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
  104. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Why go to such lengths? I'm just saying, why bother accommodating them and their dumb ways? Leave things set up properly, and hopefully they'll learn eventually, if not, that's their problem. Don't dumb down everything for a few morons.

    Getting rid of bookmarks is just as dumb as this idea that we don't need directories (folders) on our computers any more, and we can just use "desktop search" to find files that we want. It's an utterly stupid idea, because while search can be useful for finding something if you know what you're looking for, it's no substitute for proper organization. With files arranged in a sensible hierarchical directory structure, it's easy to find not only things you're looking for, but things you forgot about or don't know exist. Search is only useful if you know exactly what you want, and the keywords that are most likely to find it.

    It can take a while to find something you're looking for using Google search (or others), unless you know exactly what you're looking for. By bookmarking something, you can easily go right back to that location later, instead of hoping your Google search will find it again. While this might not be all that useful for finding, say, www.cnn.com or www.slashdot.org, suppose you want to see a particular comment on Slashdot (such as one you made as an Anonymous Coward), to see the replies to it. Good luck finding that on Google. Or suppose you find some really interesting discussion thread on some obscure forum that you read a few months before. You might get lucky and find it on Google, or you might spend 20 minutes sifting through search results trying to find it. Or you might be able to find the forum site, but then have to do more searches to try to find the particular thread you want. With a bookmark, this is not a problem.

    Finally, the obligatory car analogy. Most cars I've seen, even now, still have an analog temperature gauge, though most others have been eliminated. There's probably a good reason for this: bad thermostats aren't uncommon, and typically cause either engine overheating or overcooling. Why hasn't this gauge been eliminated because of a bunch of morons who can't understand the concept of "engine overheating"? Because it's useful for everyone else, so they know when to pull over and shut off their car before they cause irreversible damage, or so they know why they're getting crummy fuel economy. Same goes for the oil pressure light. It used to be a gauge, but the intention is the same: to warn you that there's not enough oil pressure and you shouldn't continue driving or else your engine will be destroyed. This doesn't stop morons from doing exactly that, but they still put the warning light there. Of course, you might say, "why not just have the car automatically shut down when this happens?" That's because having a car turn itself off while driving on a busy street or highway could have catastrophic consequences far worse than engine damage. Dumbing things down too much can cause far worse problems than anticipated. Or, you might say, "why not have the car print a warning message in text saying what the problem is?" That I'm not sure about, but I imagine having small-print messages on a small screen in the driver's view probably isn't very safe either, though with the larger navigation screens becoming common, this is probably what'll be normal for future cars, but it took a while for technology to get that far.

    In summary: stop trying to dumb everything down for the stupidest members of society. If we do that everywhere, then we'll train everyone to not use their brains, and everyone will be equally stupid, and then society will crumble and collapse as there's no way a society run by idiots can succeed. Brains are like muscles: use them or lose them. Even if you're born a smart kid, it's pretty easy to become a moron adult by being coddled and treated like one, and never being pushed to exercise your brain.

  105. Need bigger bar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I often feel like we need a BIGGER bar. Or someway to make the address box less forgettable. I take phone calls for a large company. We're not internet focussed but we do have some websites. It very frustrating trying to get certain people to the website. (btw, my wife does the same thing.) The customer calls because that can't get to the website. The problem is always that they are typing the address into the search box, aka the browser window itself. Duh...which one do I pick? And of course, even though the correct one is the first hit, it invariably seems it isn't for them. (thanks personalized results).
    I have actually resorted to telling callers to press F6 and start typing without looking because they just can't seem to find the address box. That doesn't alway work either. They just don't get it. How about a special key press to start a tutorial of how to properly use a browser? And have that in ALL browsers. ....there. I've vented.
    Dredge

  106. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Skywolfblue · · Score: 1

    The system has worked just fine for countless other users who are capable of logical, rational thought processes. Just because a bunch of morons now have access to computers doesn't mean we need to change them.

    In summary: stop trying to dumb everything down for the stupidest members of society. If we do that everywhere, then we'll train everyone to not use their brains, and everyone will be equally stupid, and then society will crumble and collapse as there's no way a society run by idiots can succeed. Brains are like muscles: use them or lose them. Even if you're born a smart kid, it's pretty easy to become a moron adult by being coddled and treated like one, and never being pushed to exercise your brain.

    By this logic, the GUI should never have been invented, and computer code should be typed in assembly. And only people with a degree from MIT should be able to operate them because dumbing it down so the general population can use it is sooooo not kosher. Simplification is a good thing, it frees up more time you can spend actually thinking about the stuff you're doing, and less time spent wrestling with an obfuscated and overly difficult system.

  107. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Oh please. GUIs are demonstrably better for many things, such as 1) using applications you only use occasionally and thus don't remember all the command-line arguments for, 2) doing anything that requires visualization. For instance, I use "gkrellm" to keep an eye on hardware activity. That'd be pretty hard to do with a non-graphical interface. CLIs have their place, as do GUIs.

    Simplification is only good if you're not losing important functionality in the process. Some things can only be simplified so much, and if you go too far, you'll either lose out on something useful, or in some cases, you may compromise safety.

    Should we also remove the requirement for kids to learn basic math, or algebra? After all, it's soooo hard. We could simplify school curricula by not teaching these things at all, right?

  108. hmmm might actually work by marcushnk · · Score: 1

    I think I'll be happy with this change... the tab centred url bar is a very good idea.

    --
    "Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
  109. Pentadactyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vimperator seems to have had a little bit of development drama, wherein basically one of the devs who had done little work took it over and claimed it (and the donations) for himself.
    Pentadactyl is the fork by the devs who make this claim.
    It does seem that Pentadactyl is actually being actively developed.
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/pentadactyl/

  110. Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic by Tikkun · · Score: 1

    Many modern cars already have so many different things going on in the background that they're half driven by wire anyway. Taking this to the next step where you tell the car where to drive is progress and would likely result in many fewer dying in accidents.

    Power tools are actually a great example of dumbing down things for safety's sake. The $20 drill you get at home depot that can barely go through an Ikea table isn't what people that make buildings for a living use and will do far less damage to you if your hand slips. More importantly, there are no metaphors to get with a drill. You point it at something, pull the trigger and it drills. People still manage to injure themselves on accident, as they are human. Ideally the drill would be able to look at where it's pointed at and *stop drilling* if it's looking at flesh.

    Even airplanes are a great example. I have no idea how to fly a plane, but there is someone that can get paid a great deal of money to fly for me. All I have to do is figure out how to buy the damn tickets from a website somewhere (which could be made easier, really). And even pilots aren't controlling every element of the plane without assistance from a variety of computers.

    Most people that use computers on a daily basis aren't computer experts. They're engineers, architects, scientists, lawyers, businesspeople, personal assistants, etc. The computers they use are tools to accomplish something. Some people get it, others don't. But forcing people to use metaphor after metaphor that has nothing to do with their jobs frequently doesn't result in someone that knows what the metaphors mean or how they interact, it simply results in someone that knows how to keep clicking a certain way until the black box gives them something the way it did in the past (at least until they upgraded it and everything moved around to make it more user friendly).

  111. I bet the NY Times will love this by Paul1969 · · Score: 1

    It'll screw up the easiest way to sidestep their would-be "paywall."

  112. Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati by hplus · · Score: 1

    Pentadactyl is the new vimperator http://dactyl.sourceforge.net/help/pentadactyl/

  113. Opera has it by cenkozan · · Score: 1

    When Firefox came out, I switched to it eagerly (early 2000). Then it crashed and took all my info with it. I switched to use Opera, and it proved more stable, more secure. And then I gave up using computers for a long time, like 5 years. Now I am using computer heavily, and believe me, Opera is the best. Here is a screenshot http://i.imgur.com/7yMMf.png. Can you see the URL bar? No, cause there isn't. When you click the grey bar top, then it shows up. Also the tab's are re-sizable, I can just arrange my tabs to show the necessary part of a web page. And boy, that's handy, cause there are all advr. in the pages today. So what are you waiting, switch to Opera. (Hope someone sees this post, in this crowded page, meme face goes here.)

  114. Forget the URL bar by Boomshadow · · Score: 1

    Will they ever allow us to hide the useless download bar? And will there be a version that doesn't gradually suck up all our system resources?

  115. Sad by oarion7 · · Score: 1

    This is absolutely pathetic. Google is proposing it, and society is going to love it. Death to function and information and hello to aesthetics and blissful ignorance.

  116. SPOOFABLE BROWSERS! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    I love it!
    https://www.hsbbc.co.uk/ :-)

    I know! Why not get rid of everything, and put a big "dial" in the corner. You could label different "channels" on this dial: Facebook, Google and MSN. There could also be a hidden "UHF" dial - where bookmarks would populate the "channels" that you never visit, and want to forget about.

    Welcome to the future.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  117. Monitor Manufacturers to Blame by craznar · · Score: 1

    If my computer monitors didn't keep shrinking like a fat guy was sitting on top, then there would be no need to save all this vertical real estate.

    1600x1200 -> 1600x1024 -> 1600x900 -> 1600x768 ...

    What will Browsers look like when my laptop is 1600x200 ?

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  118. I hate mandatory tabbed browsing by Ramin_HAL9001 · · Score: 0

    Cool, this is definitely a good move on Google's behalf. Now all they need to do is ditch the tabs bar as well, and Chrome will become the BEST BROWSER EVER!