Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Could Google's Test of Hiding Complete URLs In Chrome Become a Standard?

timothy posted about 6 months ago | from the dumbed-down-or-neatened-up? dept.

Chrome 327

MojoKid (1002251) writes "The address bar in a Web browser has been a standard feature for as long as Web browsers have been around — and that's not going to be changing. What could be, though, is exactly what sort of information is displayed in them. In December, Google began rolling-out a limited test of a feature in Chrome called "Origin Chip", a UI element situated to the left of the address bar. What this "chip" does is show the name of the website you're currently on, while also showing the base URL. To the right, the actual address bar shows nothing, except a prompt to "Search Google or type URL". With this implementation, a descriptive URL would not be seen in the URL bar. Instead, only the root domain would be seen, but to the left of the actual address bar. This effectively means that no matter which page you're on in a given website, all you'll ever see when looking at the address bar is the base URL in the origin chip. What helps here is that the URL is never going to be completely hidden. You'll still be able to hit Ctrl + L to select it, and hopefully be able to click on the origin chip in order to reveal the entire URL. Google could never get rid of the URL entirely, because it's required in order to link someone to a direct location, obviously."

cancel ×

327 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And the question of the day is... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905215)

Why? It's easier, more informative, more transparent, and arguably better just to show a plain old URL field than add some extra layer of crap to 'hide' it and make it less useful...

Re:And the question of the day is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905285)

I think that Jakob Nielsen has always had reservations about the address bar anyway. What's he saying this week?

FUCK BETA. GODDAMNIT, one more time I get redirect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905287)

FUCK YOU.

Re:And the question of the day is... (5, Insightful)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46905289)

Yep, and when you click the field to give it focus have it highlight the whole thing so that you can start typing your search or Ctrl+C or Ctrl+V to copy or paste the damn link. I've been compiling my own Firefox for so long I had forgotten that this wasn't a standard feature. Sure beats triple clicking the URL to select it.

Re:And the question of the day is... (4, Informative)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46905707)

If the URL is automatically highlighted that makes it even more easy to lose the content of your middle click paste buffer.
I've just seen Alt-D / Ctrl-L does that. Bummer. Best is to have a little button to clear the URL bar if that's what you want to do, I had a Firefox extension provide it and it's one of the few features included in dillo.

Or you can click at the end of the URL, press shift-home to select it all, press delete, type stuff. It still hijacks the middle mouse buffer. So the single clicking and using arrows and delete/backspace is needed as the only method that will preserve it, and that's sometimes useful if you wanted to paste the second half of a URL, after the domain name.

Re:And the question of the day is... (5, Insightful)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46905303)

The benefit is ease of use for people who have no idea what a URL is. They just look up there and see, "yes, this is definitely my bank's website," instead of "holy shit what does long string of symbols that mean."

Re:And the question of the day is... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905353)

So do what Firefox does (or did I guess I should say. Isn't doing it for me anymore).

Put the domain in solid black, and everything else in a light gray.

Re:And the question of the day is... (2, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 6 months ago | (#46905473)

Put the domain in solid black, and everything else in a light gray.

Safari 7 already does this.

It helps the dumb users AND it doesn't punish the users who understand technology.

Google are slowly turning into the old version of Microsoft.

Re:And the question of the day is... (2)

Mastax (3581043) | about 6 months ago | (#46905679)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org] Google Chrome Beta 1 ca. 2008. Notice how the URL appears.

Re:And the question of the day is... (5, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905363)

Deliberately hiding details because they confuse people is not a solid reason for turning everything into its fisher price equivalent.

Re:And the question of the day is... (4, Insightful)

irtza (893217) | about 6 months ago | (#46905483)

If the target audience of your browser is a half step or less from computer illiterate, you need to take steps to protect them from themselves. This means that the others will have to find another toy to play with because google has decided that the more literate crowd is not as valuable as customers or feels that they will just adapt, complain and move along because they have little other choice.

Re:And the question of the day is... (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905641)

Targeting the lowest common denominator is what breeds the next generation of better idiots who can't even figure out your already dumbed down design. At some point, "this far, no farther" should rule the day.

Wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905685)

The only thing more amazing than your contempt for the average browser user is Google's contempt for the average browser user.

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905487)

Deliberately hiding details because they confuse people is not a solid reason for turning everything into its fisher price equivalent.

It sure worked for Apple.

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905673)

It did. It's also why the network is getting less secure, less peer friendly, and less functional while it focuses on people who do nothing but shop at strip malls.

Re:And the question of the day is... (3, Insightful)

Ksevio (865461) | about 6 months ago | (#46905593)

Yes it is. Most information in the rest of the URL is fairly useless. Take the url of this story:
http:/ [http] /tech. slashdot.org /story /14/05/03 /007209 /could-googles-test-of-hiding-complete-urls-in-chrome-become-a-standard
We've got the protocol, which no one cares about (encryption status needs more information than just https), "tech" which means we're in the technology section (though no functional difference really), the site we're on "slashdot.org", "story" which is useless, a date which is useless (on the page), a story id, which no one cares about, and finally the title of the article, which is also useless (on the page and the window name).

All that information can be found on the web page we're looking at (except the story id). All that really matters is that this is slashdot.org, and even that isn't all that important.

With the rise of ajax, the address bar is becoming less and less needed. Half the time it has a bunch of session id info mixed in or other random ids. It's not something that the user is suppose to be looking at in most cases, the only real use is to when copying it to be able to get back to the same place.

Re:And the question of the day is... (5, Interesting)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905661)

Granted, but having access still has utility.

1. having a reference url that can be shared by im, irc, game chat, socialmedia, etc with simple copy and paste is valuable. This is still quite valid and is reason enough for keeping it visible and accessible.
2. the ability to navigate bad websites when they fail (eg they break the back button purposely) but you really need the information they contain.
3. There are still sites out there that use static urls.. it's just that google and facebook don't, so everyone now assumes no one does.
4. Being able to see fishing urls for what they really are, though this is more useful as a cursor hover in the statusbar, which is another thing the web 2.0 generation is scrambling to get rid of.

Re:And the question of the day is... (2)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 6 months ago | (#46905747)

There a trend to have the browser window not render the window's title bar. Firefox and Chrome do that by default at least on Windows, as well as MS Internet Explorer.
So a descriptive name in the URL can be a workaround for that. I do have a title bar that displays the full title, but my tab says "Coul...". I do think the descriptive URL is a good trend as well. It's better than "http://slashdot.org/0edc7435b234afbc23098cda148994e".

Re:And the question of the day is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905757)

I hope you break your neck while you try to suck your own cock.

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 6 months ago | (#46905689)

it could be easily solved by having a 'simple' and an 'expert' view paradigm.

if they want to have a simple minded audience, fine, define what things you want to drop or show differently and if the user selected 'simple', replay it that way.

if the user selected 'expert' or advanced or some other word like that, then they'd get the non-dumbed down version.

a lot of apps have this dual view kind of mode set. I don't see why this couldn't also be done, here.

Re:And the question of the day is... (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905743)

This is how things were already circa 1995-2001.. Then everyone got on this "make the web 'accessible'" mantra, so it's being dumbed down to 'hoodrat' level.

Re:And the question of the day is... (2)

CODiNE (27417) | about 6 months ago | (#46905827)

But it's good business for Google to increase user reliance on searching.

Re:And the question of the day is... (3, Insightful)

bloodhawk (813939) | about 6 months ago | (#46905527)

What ease of use? it provides them with no more knowledge and doesn't make a web page any easier to use, if they don't understand a URL they are already not typing it or touching it. Hiding it just ensures further ignorance for no benefit.

Re:And the question of the day is... (0)

Tough Love (215404) | about 6 months ago | (#46905529)

The benefit is ease of use for people who have no idea what a URL is. They just look up there and see, "yes, this is definitely my bank's website," instead of "holy shit what does long string of symbols that mean."

Thus enabling the bad guys to create a far more convincing deception. Much like showing only the text part of an email address and relying on the likes of Microsoft to hide the @badguy.com part.

Re:And the question of the day is... (0)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46905649)

And how would they go about doing that exactly?

Re:And the question of the day is... (1, Interesting)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 6 months ago | (#46905537)

I doubt this is an issue for most people. They're used to long URLs, they've been around for decades now. Google is just arrogant. They make buggy software and they're constantly looking for ways to change things (gotta keep all those worker bees busy) and they end up making their software worse (like Google Maps). There are many reasons why I prefer Firefox over Chrome and this will be one more to add to my list. My only worry is Mozilla's latest "me too!!" push to make Firefox look like Chrome. God help me if it starts acting like Chrome.

Re:And the question of the day is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905331)

So they can load you up with a shit ton of advertisements and you won't know which way they're coming from. Firefox will follow suit about ten minute after Google does it. They're like the little brother who has to copy every stunt his older brother tries.

Re:And the question of the day is... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905345)

Software is art. It's primary purpose is aesthetic appeal. The age of dorky nerds running computerland is over -- computers are beautiful things for beautiful people. If you are an ugly person and refuse to embrace the lovingly crafted minimalistic design choices of the brilliant UX designers, then feel free to go back to Netscape 6.

Re:And the question of the day is... (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about 6 months ago | (#46905379)

Software is art. It's primary purpose is aesthetic appeal. The age of dorky nerds running computerland is over -- computers are beautiful things for beautiful people. If you are an ugly person and refuse to embrace the lovingly crafted minimalistic design choices of the brilliant UX designers, then feel free to go back to Netscape 6.

Goddammit, Poe's Law!

Re:And the question of the day is... (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905417)

Too bad you're probably right. It explains why software is getting less useful and more user hostile. Those 'beautiful people' are suckers.

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 6 months ago | (#46905357)

I imagine it is to help combat phishing. Seeing store.steampowered.com with the green lock will, for sure, mean you're actually logging onto Steam, while any attempt to phish with a different domain will show something different (and many phishing domains are quite different, they just try to prey off of people not knowing how to isolate the domain).

Re:And the question of the day is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905425)

Riiiight because no one could possibly find a way to trick the browser. Nah, won't ever happen.

Re:And the question of the day is... (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#46905553)

This is all well and good until you have http://legit.example.com/viewurl.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmalicious.example.com

Magic act (1)

justthinkit (954982) | about 6 months ago | (#46905711)

Look here, at our "less fishy" interface.

While we ensure you will never go to Bob'sTinyDomain.com ever again.

The 1% [ucsc.edu]

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 6 months ago | (#46905463)

Why? It's easier, more informative, more transparent, and arguably better just to show a plain old URL field than add some extra layer of crap to 'hide' it and make it less useful...

Better for Google to keep people ignorant? To hide GOOG's butt ugly obfuscated urls and gloss over the fact that they track not only what you search for, but what you click on? Seems more than a little Microsoftish of Google.

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

CTU (1844100) | about 6 months ago | (#46905481)

I agree, it makes people have to work harder just to see this information which is NOT helpful

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

edibobb (113989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905517)

Usability and functionality are no longer relevant. All that matters is how it looks in a boardroom presentation. Get out of the stone age, man!

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

RJFerret (1279530) | about 6 months ago | (#46905807)

Worse, it's burying the most important/useful part of the URL, and displaying the I-already-knew-I-was-here part. I most often want to edit the end, or see the end, not caring about the domain and middle nearly as much.

Re:And the question of the day is... (1)

smash (1351) | about 6 months ago | (#46905823)

Let me guess, another "death by UI idiot" decision.

What's with the ancient Chrome logo? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905223)

It's been updated at least twice since that one.

Re:What's with the ancient Chrome logo? (0)

konohitowa (220547) | about 6 months ago | (#46905323)

Thank you for your contribution. Your comments have been noted and forwarded to the appropriate department. Please don't hesitate to contact us again.

Ummm yeah they could (1)

koan (80826) | about 6 months ago | (#46905225)

Google could never get rid of the URL entirely

If there's one thing I've learned with software never say never.
They could implement a service that sends the URL you want to Google first then Google fires back with the "chip" and only the "chip".

My first thought is this sounds ripe for exploit.

Re:Ummm yeah they could (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 6 months ago | (#46905359)

The "chip" is just the domain name, which is trivial to work out client-side.

Re: Ummm yeah they could (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905519)

Trivial for whom?
You miss the point Google has complete control over the software they can remove the ability to see anything.
Not that they would, but they can.

Immediately Hostile (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905241)

I'm immediately hostile to dumbing things down. However, it might, possibly, help against phishing as now you only see the URL instead of some obfuscation.

Re:Immediately Hostile (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905273)

It also makes it immediately less obvious if you're on the right page, or a malicious fake copy that you've somehow been redirected to instead...

Re:Immediately Hostile (2)

ComputersKai (3499237) | about 6 months ago | (#46905275)

But you can't see much that is going on with the true URL obfuscated.

iOS 7's Safari currently hides the true URL, and you would not believe how annoying it is for me to use it.

Re:Immediately Hostile (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905381)

it can't be as annoying as Opera
not only does it truncate the URL it also hides all text after the address beyond the ?
as a bonus, when you copy/paste the URL it does not include the http:/// [http] or https:/// [https]

i develop applications across platforms for a living. trying to test with opera is a pain in the ass. the get parameters are not visible. sometimes I forget to put the http:/// [http] or https:/// [https] in and then have to go back and fix it which is a pain in the ass when running through hundreds of test cases

Chrome isn't much better IMO
i have to deal with a tester who is very very good at her job as she takes things literally and can act like a user. the drawback is that when faced with chrome and opera she has a hard time dealing with information that is not there. now she has color printouts on her desk as memory cards to remind her what the browser images and icons mean. i can't just write 'url has https' no, I have to say 'url bar has green icon like '.

of course, her other wall is covered with printouts of the ms office ribbon with lots of little notes all nicely labelled in text boxes (i think she used mspaint). it would be a good area of research to see if it is just her brain which processes like this if it wasn't for the rest of the office asking for copies of her ribbon maps when she produces a new one

Re: Immediately Hostile (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905575)

The real question here is, is she hot?

Re:Immediately Hostile (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 6 months ago | (#46905305)

People prone to fishing don't look at URL bars enough for that to matter.

Re:Immediately Hostile (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 6 months ago | (#46905489)

That doesn't mean you take the opportunity for learning away for the sake of some stupid hipster aesthetic.

Re:Immediately Hostile (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 6 months ago | (#46905479)

firefox already slightly greys the URL parts that are not the domain

Phishing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905261)

Doesn't this make phishing easier?

Re:Phishing? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | about 6 months ago | (#46905401)

ssssssshhh damn you!

Nope. (5, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about 6 months ago | (#46905267)

What, do they want Chrome to be the next AOL?

No. Show the URL. Start trimming that down and next thing you know we'll be back with keywords...

Well, we already are at keywords ... proof ... (1)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 6 months ago | (#46905571)

1) In FireFox or Chrome I usually just type what I am searching for in the address bar.

2) On a phone, people tend to use a voice command to say what information they are looking for.

In the real olden days, people memorized phone "numbers" saying things like "Klondike" 5234 to an actual human phone exchange operator.

I think the actual digits and alphabet mapping actually came later (someone who knows, just jump in and correct!)

Hell, in the early days of the internet, half the sites seemed to be just pure IP addresses, no fancy domain names.

Evolution of the internet, I suppose ...

Re:Well, we already are at keywords ... proof ... (1)

timshea (257474) | about 6 months ago | (#46905727)

Telephone exchange names [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nope. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 6 months ago | (#46905653)

back with keywords...

this time around they are called #hashtags

Re:Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905733)

that's the plan, obviously.

Bad Idea (1)

William Robinson (875390) | about 6 months ago | (#46905271)

How the hell user will be able to go to the website in the first place? Google it and then surf around even if you knew the URL? I like entering URL of sites I know, for example 'mail.yahoo.com' when I am in hurry to check my mails. For me it sounds like a bad idea.

Re:Bad Idea (1)

cryptizard (2629853) | about 6 months ago | (#46905313)

To the right, the actual address bar shows nothing, except a prompt to "Search Google or type URL"

Re:Bad Idea (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 6 months ago | (#46905361)

You type in the URL just like normal. This only affects how urls are displayed while you navigate around. Clicking on the "chip" shows the full url and allows you to edit it as normal.

Opera had this for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905301)

This is nothing new. Opera had it for more than a year. As usual, Firefox copies Chrome, and Chrome copies Opera.

Re:Opera had this for years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905347)

Wrong.

Amateurs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905311)

Couldn't they just output the SHA-512 of the URL and be done with it?

Please try harder. (5, Interesting)

csirac (574795) | about 6 months ago | (#46905321)

There's obvious ways to shoot for the phishing mitigations that this is apparently seeking to achieve, without turning the web into an app store. We used to make fun of stupid flash sites due to lack of linkability, is it really necessary to so thoroughly lunge off the cliff into this idiocy now?

I wonder how many bad guys are already thinking of ways to exploit this. Yes the domain is more prominent, that should have been fixed years ago - but how many sites out there are completely free of XSS vulnerabilites? When this eventually becomes non-optional, how am I going to spot https://mybank.foo/?q="><script>evil; stuff;</script>

?

The perfect irony of course is that Google's own pagerank depends on cross-site linking... By robbing people of URLs, a future generation of net users will grow up never knowing how to share a page with their friends unless there's a sharing mechanism within the same site their friends already use.

Re:Please try harder. (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 6 months ago | (#46905377)

Bad guys can already do this right now, and the url still shows the bank's domain, so non-technically inclined users are no less protected.

Technically inclined users probably never navigated to the url in the first place.

Your specific example is a flaw in the specific website, and there is little Chrome can do when a website is coded in a insecure way that persists across all browsers (and web standards).

Re:Please try harder. (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 6 months ago | (#46905825)

The perfect irony of course is that Google's own pagerank depends on cross-site linking... By robbing people of URLs, a future generation of net users will grow up never knowing how to share a page with their friends unless there's a sharing mechanism within the same site their friends already use.

Who say's you need a sharing mechanism within the site? I'm sure Google will let you click and drag the "Origin Chip" into Google Hangouts (tm). The fact that that lets them track what you share is just gravy.

Next step.... (0)

namgge (777284) | about 6 months ago | (#46905327)

... they bribe the state to criminalize the use of url's and make it compulsory to access websites only via a licenced search engine.

Re:Next step.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905441)

Don't give them ideas.

http://slashdot.org/?source=autorefresh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905337)

Fuck Autorefresh

Done Already (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | about 6 months ago | (#46905341)

Dear Sir, I feel pretty sure this is a stock feature of iOS since 7.0, or maybe 7.1. Chrome is enjoyng sloppy seconds on this one.

Re:Done Already (1)

konohitowa (220547) | about 6 months ago | (#46905371)

It's funny you say that. I was going to make a similar comment but about OS X and then looked up at Safari and thought, "Wait. I'd swear Safari did this." Just had the wrong OS. :)

Re:Done Already (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 6 months ago | (#46905385)

This is for desktop... not sure about the mobile ports of Chrome.

Re:Done Already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905765)

Opera has been doing this for years. If it becomes a standard (I really hope not), then it's another example of Opera being far ahead of the game.

So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905355)

It's just an annoyance.

Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905365)

They want to make the "Search" bar bigger! and the URL bar smaller. mmmmm ... more data for Google to absorb and analyze.

Re:Easy (1)

zippthorne (748122) | about 6 months ago | (#46905619)

I don't understand this. In chrome the search bar and url bar are already the same field. Firefox, too, and for over a decade if you count "quick bookmarks."

It certainly makes sense for them to be the same field, you only ever use one of the two functions at a time.

Re:Easy (2)

PPH (736903) | about 6 months ago | (#46905687)

It certainly makes sense for them to be the same field,

Huh? Search is the box in the middle of the page I get when I go to http://www.google.com/ [google.com] . The location field is what I type or paste an explicit URL into. If my location field starts second-guessing what I'm typing like the Google search field does, I'm getting a new browser.

Hacking Google and directing them to alternate sites based on autocomplete is at least a nuisance and possibly a security risk if people don't pay attention.

Sounds like Microsoft in the 90's (0)

JeremyGNJ (1102465) | about 6 months ago | (#46905373)

This sounds exactly like something stupid Microsoft would have done in the 90's because they "know what's better for users".

Re:Sounds like Microsoft in the 90's (1)

MoonlessNights (3526789) | about 6 months ago | (#46905605)

That is what I keep thinking.

It seemed like, although Clippy might have died, his religion ("the user is stupid and needs the computer to help them use the computer") is alive and well.

The thing that confuses me is, why do people think this is "good"? Personally, I spend appreciable time fighting with software "helping" me when I already knew what I wanted to do.

Re:Sounds like Microsoft in the 90's (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 6 months ago | (#46905623)

Looking at Windows 8, I think you mean the current Microsoft.

Dumb Product Managers assuming Users are dumb. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905411)

This is a case of dumb Product Managers assuming that Users are too dumb to know what an URL is. This time to develop and test this could have been better spent in a real and useful feature.

I hope not (1)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 6 months ago | (#46905435)

I certainly hope not. The number of times I have to edit a URL in the address bar is rather high

Re:I hope not (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 6 months ago | (#46905507)

when you click it the whole URL is shown, it's just a cover for the URL

Google to replace DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905459)

If URLs and typing domains are gone... Google will be there to route and direct and govern the whole internet.

We know we can trust them. ;-)

But I clicked and it said the name was microsoft! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905505)

Sure, seeing the URL would have let you know it was http://mycr0soft.cn.ru/install.php but who needs security when you could have "security"?

As always, balance is best (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about 6 months ago | (#46905511)

The hybrid approach where the domain is in 100% black while the protocol and trailing path is 50% black or so, is perfect. It enables you to mentally filter out the extra bits, but allows you to see those extra bits at a glance without requiring any further action.

Chrome, as usual, fucks everything up, and Firefox is sure to follow.

Please stop (1, Troll)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 6 months ago | (#46905545)

I don't have anything coherent to say. I'm so disgusted with lemmings and fads running amok in this industry I am not going to bother stating the obvious.

This kind of asshattery certainly on par with Microsoft spending millions in meetings and committee design to perfect the most inane location to place shutdown/logoff buttons.

Keep up the good work.

Optional, cleaner, faster (1)

sonic71789 (3640085) | about 6 months ago | (#46905611)

The Origin Chip allows for much faster linking and searching then the previous address bar. Clicking on the Origin Chip or using the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+L shows the entire URL along with highlighting it making copying quick and easy. Clicking on any area of the address bar that isn't the Origin Chip or using the keyboard shortcut F6 instantly clears the address bar allowing for the next search term or URL to be entered quickly. Realistically this allows for a cleaner and quicker address bar for most use cases, and in those typically rare cases when you need to know the full URL it is only one click away. I don't quite understand all the outrage, and if you really need the full URL just a glance away at all times you can always go to chrome://flags/#origin-chip and disable the feature.

Google's Ultimate Goal (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 6 months ago | (#46905625)

Since their slogan was "don't be Evil" I always figured they'd end up as one of the most evil companies on the planet. That's just the way humanity is. Anything idealistic tends to get perverted. The more idealistic it is, the more perverse it tends to be. Hence, "don't be Evil" is likely to get about as perverse as it comes. This is only the beginning. The ultimate Google UI to be placed in the browser, your car, and just about anything else will be reduced to a single button marked "Submit".

Oh crap... I'm using Chrome on Slashdot and it's already happening. Oh well... no choice but to push it...

Re:Google's Ultimate Goal (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 6 months ago | (#46905741)

"The higher the ideals, the lower the result." -Lao Tzu

see iOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905633)

That's exactly what Safari on iOS does. What's the scoop?

I Don't Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905635)

Do A/B testing. If it turns out that the majority of users want this feature, activate it as default, and provide for a way to turn it off in advanced settings.

As long as I don't have to deal with it, I honestly don't care who does.

Re:I Don't Care (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905693)

Do A/B testing. If it turns out that the majority of users want this feature, activate it as default, and provide for a way to turn it off in advanced settings.

NO.

This change breaks the web.

And if you look at what UXtards have done to Firefox, GNOME, Slashdot, and Wdinows 8, you'll realize that the first link in the failure chain is to "activate it as default, and provide for a way to turn it off in advanced settings." - and a few releases later, the ability to turn off the UXtard's idea is removed because the UXtard doesn't want it "cluttering" his advanced settings menu.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm drawing it here.

This change must be reverted.

All part of the plan. (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | about 6 months ago | (#46905657)

Google could never get rid of the URL entirely, because it's required in order to link someone to a direct location, obviously.

Google doesn't want people to go to a website directly on their own. They want folks to search for it with Google, obviously.

Re:All part of the plan. (2)

msobkow (48369) | about 6 months ago | (#46905797)

I already know many people who do just that.

Type "cbc.ca" in the address bar? Screw that, they type CBC in their Google home page, wait for the search, then click on the cbc.ca link that comes up. Bass ackwards way of using the 'net in my book, but it works for them.

AOL keywords (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46905725)

All part of corporate strategy to turn the internet into television 2.0.

Must not happen.

PPC (1)

fulldecent (598482) | about 6 months ago | (#46905745)

If you run any kind of a website in a competitive market you can see the value (cash) that Google is extracting with this change.

Every time the user leaves your website to go to Google (even if they come right back) is a chance for you to lose that customer to a PPC competitor that is squatting our your trademark/URL with an ad that users will confuse as actually being part of your site.

Anyone with me on this?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?