Don't quote Hegel. Haggle. It scores more marks - Mike Magee
|
|
|
Google drops the http:// from Chrome
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER Google has made a change in the developer version of its browser Chrome, which seems to have ruffled a few feathers, by getting rid of the "http://" from the beginning of web addresses, putting in its place a pretty blue Earth icon.
If you're wondering about whether you'll still see "ftp://" and "https://", not to worry, these will be shown. But quite a few people have protested about this change, one of the arguments being that when people want to copy the text of the URL, they'll want the "http://" to go along with it, so they can embed, tweet it or do something else.
Google has tried to address this so that copying all the text will give the "http://" prefix, but unfortunately there are a few problems with this. One of these is a bug where a partial copy of the URL will mean you will have to reinsert the "http://". There are also other documented issues, such as breaking middle-click paste functionality in Linux.
It's understandable why Google is working on making this change. The "http://" bit of a web address doesn't actually mean very much, with even the father of the world wide web Tim Berners-Lee admitting that the "//" was actually a pointless and unnecessary addition.
And Safari has already done this with its mobile browser, likely for the reason that it saves space. However, judging from the uproar from users, Google hasn't totally thought through what this change might mean for some web users. µ
Share this:
Share
Actually the Http:// indicates the routing protocol... being hypertext ....which has about zero to do with the "www" being redundant. In actuality, its anything but. suppose you hots a web site, an ftp directory, secure web site, and secure shell all from the same server. The route which each takes would call for a different protocol specific address, such as ftp:// , http://, https:// , ect, in order to tell each interface what port to use. Also, you can have Http:// for non www related sites, such as a redirection to an internal server ( lets say mail.google.com for example ) in which case adding www to its index would indicate a non internal route ( Being a world wide web address )
Hope this was at least somewhat insightful
It has to go.
If we want user friendly devices and GUI then this stupid non-friendly term has to be thrown away.
The 'www' was introduced to tell us it was a web site we were visiting. Any IT knowledgeable person knew that the http:// part told us that. So 'www' became technically redundant.
So, let's bring it back and have 'www' for web pages, 'ftp.' for ftp sites, etc.
We don't need https:// for secure sites as any server worth its salt simply directs the user to the secure site and the browser displays the padlock symbol.
The user has no need to see it's a secure site by looking for https.
It makes sense.
He did _not_ say that :// was unnecessary. He said that in retrospect having TWO slashes was pointless, and if he did it again he only would have had one.
To me it was first annoying, then realized that if I had to copy the URL it really did not matter.
After all the CTRL+L selects the whole text, or single click on the URL.
It is only annoying if one selects part of the url, e.g. only beginning, they probably could add the http:// if first character is selected.
I personally like the change.. the http is useless and outdated.
I would compare it to displaying the actual html code in ever page.. unnecessary.
Only question I have is how does it effect phoning home to google. most people will get used to it and just start typing www.google.com. now is chrome going to consider that a "search" while its being typed and phone home each letter when it normally would not if you type http:// unless your logged in and have remember history enabled. Cause if every url I type is going to be on googles servers tiesd to my IP for 18 months before its anonymized.... then that I would have issues with.
There actually is a point for http: since there are more protocols, that can be used in a webbrowser, and in fact mozilla lets you add your own since what was it? 2.?
It's interesting though that first google announces they won't do the 'did you mean:' when they think you made a typo in search and now are dropping http: in chrome, I'm guessing they used the youtube comments data they collected and determined that all humans are retarded and they now feel they need to simplify more.
Maybe they are right, but another way to look at it would be to be especially nice for the very few who might show up on the internet who are not retarded and cater to them instead since who wants to cater to the idiots of the world really? (Apart from your elected officials and religious management of course who dream of nothing else)
GOOGLE NEVER COMPLANES ABOUT WHAT I DO, SO I GUESS I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY DO.
TIT-FOR-TAT
I have already had a problem with not copying URLS properly thanks to this.
Fortunately Firefox 3.7a5pre works very well for me now - it's fast which was my main reason for being a Chrome convert. It's not as pretty as Chrome but so much more comprehensive. I feel there is a choice again.
Nice bonus feature: this comment field is resizeable for me in FF. so I can see all of my comment nicely.
The problem is: what if the user select part of the address manualy? Let's say the address is in the form:
www.site.tld/article.php?page=1
And the user decides to manually select the characters up to ".php". Should "http://" be added to the clipboard or not? Either option is bound to be "wrong" in some occasions. As long as the http:// is displayed, users can decide if they want to copy it (ex., to post a link) or not (ex., to copy just the site name, for a text).
And it's unclear what exactly is gained by removing the protocol. Sure, if the address is too long to fit on the screen, abbreviate it by hiding the http:// (and also the "www.", I guess) leaving only "site.tld/.../document.html". But when the user clicks on the address bar, the full thing should be displayed.
As a programmer I think its just silly, ....I'd just make it so when the user copies the URL the real URL is copied to the clipboard instead of the shorter/prettier one the users see, it should only be like 2 lines of code!
I'd like to see the full URL at all times, though I can understand trying to shorten it up, i.e. people on netbooks cant see but 10 characters per line as it is lol!
And no option to turn it on. If it reduces "Chrome" adoption by revealing an incipient authoritarianism, and change for the sole sake of change, then it's possibly to the good.
All the browsers I use do this anyway
"HTTP:\\"?
Oh dear...
love it! ;)
Very neat, especially how it still copies the full address.
so why can't they just have an under the hood setting that allows the user choose wether to display HTTP:\\ etc or not, problem solved, simples!!!!