Slashdot Mirror
Google Temporarily Brings Back the www In Chrome URLs -- But Should They? (digitaltrends.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Digital Trends:
With the launch of Chrome 69, Google stunned users last week with a surprising decision to no longer display the "www" and "m" part of the URL in the Chrome search bar, but user backlash forced Google to soften its stance. Google's course reversal, although welcomed by users, is only short term, and the search giant said it will change course once again with the release of the Chrome 70 browser....
Critics have argued that by not displaying the special-case subdomains, it was harder for users to identify sites as legitimate, and the move could lead to more scams on the internet. Others go as far as questioning Google's motives for not displaying the "www" and "m" portion of a web address, and these users speculated that the move may be to disguise Google's AMP -- or Accelerated Mobile Pages -- subdomain to make it indistinguishable for the actual domain....
With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the 'www' portion of a web address inside the search bar, but it will continue to display the 'm' subdomain. "We are not going to elide 'm' in M70 because we found large sites that have a user-controlled 'm' subdomain," Google Chromium product manager Emily Schecter said. "There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the 'www' subdomain to be user controlled."
ZDNet notes that while Chrome's billion-plus users were surprised, "Apple's Safari likewise hides the www and m but it hasn't caused as much concern, likely because of Google's outsized influence over the web and Chrome's dominance of the browser market."
TechRepublic quotes a community feedback post that had argued that "Lying about the hostname to novices and power users alike in the name of simplifying the UI seems imprudent from a security perspective."
Critics have argued that by not displaying the special-case subdomains, it was harder for users to identify sites as legitimate, and the move could lead to more scams on the internet. Others go as far as questioning Google's motives for not displaying the "www" and "m" portion of a web address, and these users speculated that the move may be to disguise Google's AMP -- or Accelerated Mobile Pages -- subdomain to make it indistinguishable for the actual domain....
With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the 'www' portion of a web address inside the search bar, but it will continue to display the 'm' subdomain. "We are not going to elide 'm' in M70 because we found large sites that have a user-controlled 'm' subdomain," Google Chromium product manager Emily Schecter said. "There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the 'www' subdomain to be user controlled."
ZDNet notes that while Chrome's billion-plus users were surprised, "Apple's Safari likewise hides the www and m but it hasn't caused as much concern, likely because of Google's outsized influence over the web and Chrome's dominance of the browser market."
TechRepublic quotes a community feedback post that had argued that "Lying about the hostname to novices and power users alike in the name of simplifying the UI seems imprudent from a security perspective."
URLs should be displayed as they are, not interpreted, not dumbed down for dumb users, not altered in any way.
Anything else poses security risks to people who know what they're doing, and further enables absolute idiots who have no business being anywhere near a computer and are too stupid to figure out even the basics of how anything works. We all have enough trouble with those.
Speaking of idiots, in about 5 posts expect to see some moron trying to say this is all Donald Trump's fault since every other discussion around here seems to devolve into that.
The URL bar should display the URL.
The URL contains a domain. It should display that domain. There is no reason to lie about the location. It is important if I am at sub.domain.tld or domain.tld. Those are different locations, served, in theory, by different machines.
If something as simple as a "www" overwhelms you, please tell your legal guardian that you have an exacerbation, and maybe a computer has become too much for you entirely. You certainly won't be tying your own shoes anymore at that level of mental disability.
Google should PERMANENTLY stop fiddling with this bullshit. The thing in the address bar is not a aol or compuserve keyword. It's an URL, that's a protocol, a hostname, and then whatever random trash you need to feed the webmonkeys' infernal machine to give it what you want -- which might be a file name, lots of parameters, or whatever else. Trying to hide some part of it because it confuses the lusers will not un-confuse the lusers, they are permanently confused anyway. It will now also confuse the slightly-more-savvy, and annoy the experts.
I say we really ought've come up with a better interface than google, mozilla, or redmond, or really most everyone else "big", have managed so far. Something that Just Does Not Care about what lusers "think", but is straight-up clear and honest about the technical side of things. The absence of such a thing just goes to show that nobody knowledgeable is actually active in this space. Webmonkeying breeds webmonkeys. Whodathot.
Why change things all the time (and waste the users' time) when things don't get better? I.e., why not leave the URL alone?
simplifying the UI
How is removing information like www. a simplification of the user interface?
"With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the ‘www’ portion of a web address inside the search bar"
They are putting the 'm.' back in, not www. They are basing this on a rough idea of not knowing of a 'www.' that differs from the top level of a 'large' site, rather than some hard and fast rule.
The simple fact of the matter is it is a dumb idea. It doesn't make urls any friendlier (who in the world honestly believes that www. and m. are the thing that can make urls hard?), but it does potentially cause confusion.
As to calls of 'but Apple can...', the difference is that browser has less than 4% of the share of the desktop market, and those people are the unbelievably loyal to Apple. On the mobile browser, the url situation is already pretty useless given the limited screen real estate.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Doing so makes Chrome the Phisherman's friend. Pale Moon seems to be the only modern browser that has the courage to show the full url by default.
a browser that works for interacting with the internet. I don't need a play toy that has a new version every week with features I need to try to turn off/ignore/find workarounds for. To the real world a browser is just a tool. Not an epic thing in itself. I don't use chrome much because I dislike their useless feature driven junk and it's huge foot print, slow performance, lousy UI, etc (starting 10 tasks). I also wonder what a browser made by a marketing company that makes money by selling out their users (data and privacy) is doing in the background. ;)
Do the task, Do it well, Fix broken things otherwise leave it alone! Most everything that is being added now is excess junk.
The concept that developers should always be adding new features is a mistaken course. Constantly redesigning the UI is a waste. Make it work and work well then only add really important things when the need comes up. And resist adding junk and calling them features.
And dumbing down and hiding things from the users is a mistake! Granted some don't have a good grasp on reality but such is life.
Just my 2 cents
Hiding the subdomain opens the potential to make a user named "www.www" and be given the user-specific subdomain www.www.somesite.com, which then displays as www.somesite.com which will seem legitimate, and other dumb things.
www was never designed to have special privileges, so there's no protections in place to handle the basic stupid things that can happen when a browser decides to give it special treatment. Same goes for the "m" subdomain - sites have cheerfully been letting users create accounts with the username "m" and allocating them the m.site.com subdomain, because "m" doesn't mean anything special unless you decide to use it for something.
Huh?
What do they mean 'www' shouldn't be controlled by "users"...it's not for google to decide. Companies purchase domain names and different sub domains are for different things. Example -- if you don't go to www.vim.org, you won't get there. It's not the same as 'vim.org'. If you try to goto vim.org
it says the host isn't found -- because no valid host is at vim.org -- only www.vim.org.
How stupid is google to think they are the same?
Actually in the initial implementation they dropped www regardless of the location in the url.
So www.www.somesite.com became somesite.com
And google.www.com became google.com
It's not that I trust www.domain.tld but not m.domain.tld. It's that sometimes I want to be on the www site, and sometimes I want to be on the m site.
Not everything has to be about security.
That said, smarter people than me will probably come up with reasons.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Actually, some people do actually use Safari on the desktop, despite your claim. Personally there are aspects of the Chrome UI that I dislike and it was for sometime, a bit of a resource hog.
And the article is incorrect about safari dropping www. That happens often at the website level where the website itself redirects from www.domain to domain. That is not a function of the browser, the browser it following the re-direct and showing the correct data. www.cnn.com for example stays www.cnn.com. if I use the web shortcut from search, it usually goes to cnn.com, but that is the entry being supplied by search ( in this case google ), so again safari is working correctly.
www.slashtod.com redirects itself to slashdot.com or one of the many tech.slashdot.com sub headings on the domain. so again safari is working correctly.
go to www.brand.com and do the thing
im at brand.com and its not working
no you have to be at www.brand.com
ive typed that in but im at brand.com
no, you need the www at the front, brand.com is a different site to www.brand.com
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Why do you presume the same people are working on both projects?
Remember when Microsoft decided it's users were just too bone headed to understand complicated extensions like .txt and .exe, so they hid them? And how they then wondered why people were happily clicking on invoice.doc.exe and costing the economy billions of dollars?
Google is the new Microsoft and they think everyone that isn't Google is stupid.
Actually it is pretty annoying. Safari has an option in the application preferences advanced tab to turn this malfeature off.
However, although it shows the URL from the domain name forward, including the www. portion if present, it does not show the http:// portion.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There is another bit of user interface stupidity to this story. From TFA:
Before reversing the changes it made, users were able to reveal the full web address — including the www or m subdomains — by double-clicking on the address bar in Chrome 69.
Then from the original ZDnet article:
and if you copy the simplified address and paste it elsewhere it will display the full address.
So in the name of "simplification" Google now has introduced a text bar whose text changes depending on HOW you click on it, and whose text is not representative of the actual text which would be copied to the clipboard.
This has got to be a WTF as big as the WTF about hiding the www in the first place. How could you screw up something as simple as a text entry field.
To the person at Google who stated that www is now considered a 'trivial' subdomain":
In my experience, "www" is not typically a subdomain. It is a host name. For example, in your DNS you might have an A record that resolves "www" to the IP address of your web server, just as you might have an A record that resolves "ftp" to your FTP server, or whatever.
The interesting thing about DNS, however, is that you can create an A record for a subdomain. This means you can make the "www" part of a URL optional by having "www.mydomain.com" and "mydomain.com" resolve to the same IP address (or group of addresses).
So, Google, kindly do not fuck with my DNS naming preferences. When I pay to register a domain, that includes the right to determine what I do (and don't do) with the DNS for my domain. If I want to show "www" in my URLs, that's my bloody business, not yours.
N- wait... *re-reads the title* Y... Yes?
A missed opportunity for a ".m" tld or ".www" tld
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Not that you're generally wrong, but I would like to contest a minor point.
Chrome is built for the end user consumer market.
I think the better description would be to say Chrome is marketed to consumers. It's a subtle difference, but I think it leaves the clarity to say specifically that Chrome is built to further Google's goals. One of Google's main goals is to get consumers to use their system.
We've all seen people go to google.com to search for facebook rather than going to facebook.com directly. That's a win for Google. Google would really win if people forgot URLs exist. Then the only way to get to any website would be by having Google search for it, at least for most people. How could that happen? In small steps where first the http or https is hidden since most people don't know or care why it exists. Then after people get used to that, the next step is to hide other parts of the URL that people don't care to understand. Subdomains mean nothing to most people, TLDs are next. Really, what's the difference for most people? That's where Chrome is headed and what it is built for.
The real tragedy is that most people will be happier with it.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Anyone can spend billions promoting something that people care little to nothing about and make it the most successful. People don't give a rats ass about the browser. It is the OS of the web. Give me my internet and get the fuck out of the way.
It certainly is not the best. They roll out bugs nearly every week. People notice when the internet quits working.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock