WHY is http:// hidden?

[Alexander Skwar]

Hi.

I know, nobody has to explain anything at all to me. But anyway...
I'd like to know WHY the decision has been made to hide http://
in the first place. What problem should be solved by doing this?

Maybe this would make it easier for me (and maybe other people,
who oppose this change) to accept it, if it were possible to under-
stand why this has been done.

Thanks,
Alexander
--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯

[Eric Roman]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alexander Skwar <alex...@skwar.name> wrote:

Hi.

I know, nobody has to explain anything at all to me. But anyway...
I'd like to know WHY the decision has been made to hide http://
in the first place. What problem should be solved by doing this?

Maybe this would make it easier for me (and maybe other people,
who oppose this change) to accept it, if it were possible to under-
stand why this has been done.

Thanks,
Alexander

Perhaps there is some info here:

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467 

--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

[James Su]

在 2010年4月15日 下午4:23，Eric Roman <ero...@chromium.org>写道：

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alexander Skwar <alex...@skwar.name> wrote:

Hi.

I know, nobody has to explain anything at all to me. But anyway...
I'd like to know WHY the decision has been made to hide http://
in the first place. What problem should be solved by doing this?

Maybe this would make it easier for me (and maybe other people,
who oppose this change) to accept it, if it were possible to under-
stand why this has been done.

Thanks,
Alexander

Perhaps there is some info here:

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467

It doesn't state the reason why we hide http://.

 

 

--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
   http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

--
Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium...@chromium.org
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss

[Aaron Toponce]

On 4/15/2010 6:01 PM, James Su wrote:
> 在 2010年4月15日 下午4:23，Eric Roman <ero...@chromium.org

> <mailto:ero...@chromium.org>>写道：

> Perhaps there is some info here:
> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467
>
> It doesn't state the reason why we hide http://.

I think the reason should be quite obvious. At least, I don't think it
should be spelled out. However, http:// is the default protocol of the
web, and as a result, the browser. So, why should the browser be
communicating to you that it's using http://, when that's already
understood? If it's not understood, why should it matter? The only thing
that should matter, is when the browser is being used in a manner that
it was not intended for.

Browsers are the only application that I am aware of that communicate
their default protocol to the user. Every browser across the board. Why?
IRC clients don't tell you they're using irc://. SSH clients don't tell
you they're using ssh://. SMTP clients don't tell you they're using
smtp://. IMAP and POP3 don't tell you they're using imap:// and pop://.
Even many FTP clients don't tell you they're using ftp://. So, why
should the browser be any different?

It doesn't break copy and paste. The user is still communicated what
site they are visiting (the important part). If the user uses another
protocol other than http://, such as https:// or ftp:// in their
browser, then the browser is using a different protocol than default,
and this should be communicated to the user.

Fact of the matter is, displaying http:// in the address bar was just
redundant, pointless and silly, and Chromium is making the right step in
removing it from the display.

--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
. . O . O O O . O . O O . . O
O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O

[Alexander Skwar]

Aaron,

if it were so obvious, I wouldn't ask and there wouldn't be such

a mess :)

Why display http://? Because that's important information! It belongs

to the address and everybody is used to it.

Also your comparisons to ftp, irc, mail, ... don't hold. A webbrowser

is unique in that sense, as no other piece of software is so much

"multi-protocol" (http, https, ftp, ...) and allows (or actually: "is made

for") to hop from one host to another. That's certainly not the case with

mail, irc, ftp clients - there, you setup once a connection and then

you basically forget about it. A webbrowser is different.

It also very much DOES break copy and paste - just have a look

at all these bug reports.

Your conclusion is thus wrong - displaying http:// was never

wrong or redundant. It wasn't so and still isn't wrong and/or

redundant. By *removing* the protocol from the display is taking

a very broad step in a WRONG direction. It really should be

reversed.

Finally, by now, you must have understood, that your users

(not only me - I don't matter much) do NOT want http:// to be

hidden. So why keep that wrong change? Be brave and "admit"

that it was failure. I mean, it's no problem that something wrong

was done, it's dev after all, isn't it? :)

Alexander

2010/4/16 Aaron Toponce <aaron....@gmail.com>

--
Alexander

--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯

[dinu]

Hi,

I think it was a good move.

1. Yes Aaron said, its quite obvious, and no other systems and services tell you you are using smtp or pop or ftp, etc unless you are setting up something.

2. Common people, will understand a globe, globe with lock and red skeleton, better than terms like http, and https. In future, they will look at that icon and will be able to figure something out which they are not able to do, reading http and https now.

Greetings
Dinsan

http://chromestory.com/

[PJC]

Again, I also must disagree.

First, while it can be *implied* that "no protocol means http://",
it's not *obvious*. Also, the question here isn't whether that's
obvious, but what the rationale was behind the change. That has yet
to be explained anywhere so far as I can tell.

What I (and I believe Alexander) would like to see is a reason that
the decision was taken, rather than a discussion of how things are
fine now that it's been removed, etc...

Personally, I can see no *reason* for removing http:// from the
omnibar.

Second, I do feel that if *one* protocol is removed, then *all*
protocols should be removed. The inconsistency of having it shown for
https:// and ftp:// but not http:// is more confusing to me.

All said, though, I see no reason for removing it.

-PJC

On Apr 16, 7:07 am, dinu <din...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it was a good move.
>
> 1. Yes Aaron said, its quite obvious, and no other systems and services tell
> you you are using smtp or pop or ftp, etc unless you are setting up
> something.
>
> 2. Common people, will understand a globe, globe with lock and red skeleton,
> better than terms like http, and https. In future, they will look at that
> icon and will be able to figure something out which they are not able to do,
> reading http and https now.
>
> Greetings
> Dinsan
>
> http://chromestory.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Alexander Skwar <a.sk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aaron,
>
> > if it were so obvious, I wouldn't ask and there wouldn't be such
> > a mess :)
>

> > Why displayhttp://?Because that's important information! It belongs

> > to the address and everybody is used to it.
>
> > Also your comparisons to ftp, irc, mail, ... don't hold. A webbrowser
> > is unique in that sense, as no other piece of software is so much
> > "multi-protocol" (http, https, ftp, ...) and allows (or actually: "is made
> > for") to hop from one host to another. That's certainly not the case with
> > mail, irc, ftp clients - there, you setup once a connection and then
> > you basically forget about it. A webbrowser is different.
>
> > It also very much DOES break copy and paste - just have a look
> > at all these bug reports.
>
> > Your conclusion is thus wrong - displaying http:// was never
> > wrong or redundant. It wasn't so and still isn't wrong and/or
> > redundant. By *removing* the protocol from the display is taking
> > a very broad step in a WRONG direction. It really should be
> > reversed.
>
> > Finally, by now, you must have understood, that your users
> > (not only me - I don't matter much) do NOT want http:// to be
> > hidden. So why keep that wrong change? Be brave and "admit"
> > that it was failure. I mean, it's no problem that something wrong
> > was done, it's dev after all, isn't it? :)
>
> > Alexander
>

> > 2010/4/16 Aaron Toponce <aaron.topo...@gmail.com>

> > ↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.sk...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯
>
> >  --
> > Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

> > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
> >http://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium-discuss
>
> --

> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[Aaron Toponce]

On 4/16/2010 12:03 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Why display http://? Because that's important information! It belongs
> to the address and everybody is used to it.

So, don't remove it, because people don't like change? Don't remove it
because we're emotionally attached to seeing it in the address bar? Is
that what you're saying? Why did we put the tabs on the top of the
browser then? After all, people were used to tabs in the middle. Why
combine the address bar and the search bar together in one? Why remove
the entire menu bar to a couple of icons? Because they're all
improvements to the browser. So is removing http:// from the display.

> Also your comparisons to ftp, irc, mail, ... don't hold. A webbrowser
> is unique in that sense, as no other piece of software is so much
> "multi-protocol" (http, https, ftp, ...) and allows (or actually: "is made
> for") to hop from one host to another. That's certainly not the case with
> mail, irc, ftp clients - there, you setup once a connection and then
> you basically forget about it. A webbrowser is different.

You know not of what you speak. My IRC client can speak irc://, xmpp://,
msn://, yahoo://, aim://, and others thanks to connecting it to Bitlbee.
Yet, I don't need to know it's using their default protocols. I only
need to know when I can chat with my friends, and when I can't. My email
client speaks smtp://, imap://, and pop3://, yet I don't need to know
this. All that's important to me is sending and retrieving mail.

> It also very much DOES break copy and paste - just have a look
> at all these bug reports.

You should read the bug reports. Start here:
code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41467. People claim in
"breaks" copy/paste, because "http://" isn't displayed. No real use
cases are presented. But, as has been explained many times, the
clipboard on your operating system has the capability of knowing it's a
web object, and applications have the same capability. The bug reports
exist, because people don't like it, not because it's actually breaking
any applications. Take a look at comments 1, 2, 20, 29, 32, and 67. Then
read the replies by pkasting at 3, 19, 22, and 31. People call it
"breaking", because they don't like it. No one has provided any use
cases of applications that don't actually recognize the URL object from
the clipboard with http:// removed.

> Your conclusion is thus wrong - displaying http:// was never
> wrong or redundant. It wasn't so and still isn't wrong and/or
> redundant. By *removing* the protocol from the display is taking
> a very broad step in a WRONG direction. It really should be
> reversed.

Why? Because you don't like it? Why do you care that the browser is
communicating over http://? That's the default behavior. Why do you
already know this AND want you browser to tell you at the same time? I
want to know when my browser is doing something different from default.
I don't care to know 24/7 that it's behaving as it should.

> Finally, by now, you must have understood, that your users
> (not only me - I don't matter much) do NOT want http:// to be
> hidden. So why keep that wrong change? Be brave and "admit"
> that it was failure. I mean, it's no problem that something wrong
> was done, it's dev after all, isn't it? :)

But your average user isn't even going to notice the change. 95$ of the
Internet isn't going to care. Sure, technophiles, developers, system
admins, geeks, etc will see it right away, but your mom, brother,
sister, aunt, uncle, grandma or grandpa? C'mon! Provide an actual use
case of someone who isn't a techno-nerd, who noticed it was removed, and
was upset because of it. Then, find the reason for them being upset.

[Artem Mikhmel]

On 16 April 2010 15:57, Aaron Toponce <aaron....@gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/16/2010 12:03 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Why display http://? Because that's important information! It belongs
> to the address and everybody is used to it.

So, don't remove it, because people don't like change? Don't remove it
because we're emotionally attached to seeing it in the address bar? Is
that what you're saying?

No, don't remove it, because it is an essential part of an URI.

So, the only reason to remove is: "Why not?" 

[Aaron Toponce]

On 4/16/2010 2:12 AM, PJC wrote:
> First, while it can be *implied* that "no protocol means http://",
> it's not *obvious*. Also, the question here isn't whether that's
> obvious, but what the rationale was behind the change. That has yet
> to be explained anywhere so far as I can tell.

You must not have read my email. The justification for the change, is it
is understood that the browser already communicates over http:// by
default. There is no reason to continue to communicate this to the user.
If the browser uses a different protocol than default, then display that
to the user. Otherwise, it's redundant information.

> What I (and I believe Alexander) would like to see is a reason that
> the decision was taken, rather than a discussion of how things are
> fine now that it's been removed, etc...

Read above.

> Personally, I can see no *reason* for removing http:// from the
> omnibar.

You've stated this twice already.

> Second, I do feel that if *one* protocol is removed, then *all*
> protocols should be removed. The inconsistency of having it shown for
> https:// and ftp:// but not http:// is more confusing to me.

It's not inconsistent at all. http:// is default, https:// and ftp://
are not. Don't display what is already default. Only display what isn't.
That's not inconsistent in the least. This is actually quite valuable
and informative.

[Alexander Skwar]

Hi!

2010/4/16 Aaron Toponce <aaron....@gmail.com>

On 4/16/2010 12:03 AM, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Why display http://? Because that's important information! It belongs
> to the address and everybody is used to it.

So, don't remove it, because people don't like change?

Yes, that's also a reason. Sometimes, people have to adapt to chages.

But with this thing here, if http:// is removed, nothing is better. So why

force the change upon other people?

Main point was, though, it shouldn't be removed, because if makes things

more ugly and more complicated. Both from a visual perspective and certainly

also from a technical perspective.

 

Don't remove it
because we're emotionally attached to seeing it in the address bar? Is
that what you're saying?

Why do you ask? I said, what I said.

 

Why did we put the tabs on the top of the
browser then?

I don't care where the tabs are. If I compare Firefox to Chrome wrt. to

tabs, I didn't even notice a difference. Now that I know that there's a

difference, I've got a hard time saying what's better (ie. what I like more).

 

 

Why combine the address bar and the search bar together in one?

You should read the bug reports... I've written something wrt. this.

 

Why remove
the entire menu bar to a couple of icons? Because they're all
improvements to the browser. So is removing http:// from the display.

Wrong. 

 

> Also your comparisons to ftp, irc, mail, ... don't hold. A webbrowser
> is unique in that sense, as no other piece of software is so much
> "multi-protocol" (http, https, ftp, ...) and allows (or actually: "is made
> for") to hop from one host to another. That's certainly not the case with
> mail, irc, ftp clients - there, you setup once a connection and then
> you basically forget about it. A webbrowser is different.

You know not of what you speak.

Says who? You? You're wrong.

 

My IRC client can speak irc://, xmpp://,
msn://, yahoo://, aim://, and others thanks to connecting it to Bitlbee.
Yet, I don't need to know it's using their default protocols. I only
need to know when I can chat with my friends, and when I can't. My email
client speaks smtp://, imap://, and pop3://, yet I don't need to know
this. All that's important to me is sending and retrieving mail.

I wrote something regarding the difference of a webbrowser and

a mail or ftp client. You should read it.

 

> It also very much DOES break copy and paste - just have a look
> at all these bug reports.

You should read the bug reports.

Like I'm not...

 

But, as has been explained many times, the
clipboard on your operating system has the capability of knowing it's a
web object, and applications have the same capability.

Not all of the apps have that capability and as you can see in

other mails I've written on this list regarding this topic (not in

this particular thread, though), even when copy-pasting something

into the web form of gmail, the http:// is missing. That's bad. If

I paste an URL into an email it's GOT TO BE CORRECT. If the

protocol is missing, the URL is, by definition, NOT CORRECT.

> Your conclusion is thus wrong - displaying http:// was never
> wrong or redundant. It wasn't so and still isn't wrong and/or
> redundant. By *removing* the protocol from the display is taking
> a very broad step in a WRONG direction. It really should be
> reversed.

Why? Because you don't like it?

Yes, one of the reasons is, that I don't like it. I explained why

I dislike it.

 

Why do you care that the browser is
communicating over http://?

'coz it's important to know how it's communicating. 

 

That's the default behavior.

True. Doesn't mean anything, though.

 

> Finally, by now, you must have understood, that your users
> (not only me - I don't matter much) do NOT want http:// to be
> hidden. So why keep that wrong change? Be brave and "admit"
> that it was failure. I mean, it's no problem that something wrong
> was done, it's dev after all, isn't it? :)

But your average user isn't even going to notice the change.

Fine. If he isn't going to notice it, then don't change it, because there's

a not irrelevant number of users who DO notice the change and oppose

it. But, as I said, read the bug reports!

 

95$ of the
Internet isn't going to care.

Might be. If that's so, don't change!

 

Sure, technophiles, developers, system
admins, geeks, etc will see it right away,

They don't matter? I disagree. I do agree, that this might not be the

largest number of users, but what does that mean?

 

but your mom, brother,
sister, aunt, uncle, grandma or grandpa? C'mon! Provide an actual use
case of someone who isn't a techno-nerd, who noticed it was removed, and
was upset because of it.

Again: Why invest time into something, which people don't notice and

which doesn't improve anything?

[dinu]

I dont think  it makes things complicated. 

we are replacing few moderately geeky terms with few icons, which will communicate with regular users better.

normal users will benefit from this, in long run.

Greetings
Dinsan

http://chromestory.com/

[Alexander Skwar]

Hello.

2010/4/16 Aaron Toponce <aaron....@gmail.com>

On 4/16/2010 2:12 AM, PJC wrote:
> First, while it can be *implied* that "no protocol means http://",
> it's not *obvious*.  Also, the question here isn't whether that's
> obvious, but what the rationale was behind the change.  That has yet
> to be explained anywhere so far as I can tell.

You must not have read my email. The justification for the change, is it
is understood that the browser already communicates over http:// by
default. There is no reason to continue to communicate this to the user.

Wrong. There is very much reason for communicating this to the

user. One of the reasons is, to reassure the user, that the browser

is doing the correct thing. And that the user is at the correct "place"

(just think about corner cases like http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub).

 

If the browser uses a different protocol than default, then display that
to the user. Otherwise, it's redundant information.

It's not.

Much of the "anger" could also be resolved by offering OPTIONS to the

users, I'd guess. Ie. introduce something like Firefox' about:config into

chrome and add an "under-the-hood" option for tuning this. Because

it's not always true that "one size fits all".

Alexander
--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯

↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯

--

[Alexander Skwar]

I disagree.

Normal users will *NOT* benefit from this. Not even in the long

run.

Reason: Display is inconsistent (sometimes protocol is displayed,

sometimes not → inconsistent). People have to grasp what the

icon might mean. People would even have to first grasp that the

icon is supposed to mean anything at all.

2010/4/16 dinu <din...@gmail.com>

[farout]

OK
99% of the users of a browser on the planet don't know and don't care
about some cryptic geekazoid acronym punctuation crap. Nor do they
know anything about arcane ctrl, shift, alt and even some can't even
distort their hands and fingers to push all those buttons at the same
time. And don't get me started on the confusion in users minds brought
on by the forward slash and back slash use in windows and the
browser.

http:// is hidden because 99% of the users don't know what it is
anyway.

I like windows 7 explorer which eliminated the slashes which you eye
has a hard time parsing and replaced it with subdirectory drop down
lists,

Time and motion studies and rules of ergonomic user interface design
says move all the tab, address bar browser controls to the bottom of
the screen anyway. The browser controls are used 99% of the time after
the user has assimilated the content which would be at the top of the
screen and 99% of the users never use browser controls anyway.

I "hope" Skwer never gets his way and learns to accept "change" based
on sound marketing principals of capitalism and not an oligarchy of a
small elite geek segment of society .

Way to go Chorme team. I like the way you think outside the box.

[Wiiboy]

> a not irrelevant number of users who DO notice the change and oppose
> it.

Just because there's a vociferous few with one opinion does not mean
they represent the majority.
Regardless, he debate here is not whether you _like_ it. If it is,
stop complaining: that's not a reason. Otherwise, we need a real
reason this actually breaks something.

[Alexander Skwar]

2010/4/16 Wiiboy <jord...@gmail.com>

> a not irrelevant number of users who DO notice the change and oppose
> it.

Just because there's a vociferous few with one opinion does not mean
they represent the majority.

Just because there's a quite mass, it doesn't mean that this

mass is in favor of the change. The opposite MIGHT be true:

It takes time and energy to complain about something. I don't

have the numbers at hand, but IIRC for every one "customer"

that complains, a much larger number of customers just turns

away and/or gives "bad PR" on other channels.

 

Regardless, he debate here is not whether you _like_ it.

Yes, it is. It's one of the reasons and it's a valid one.

 

 If it is,
stop complaining: that's not a reason.  Otherwise, we need a real
reason this actually breaks something.

Those have been given as well.

Alexander
--
↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/     ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯

[S D Allen]

+1

--
Cheers,
Steve
###############################################        
My Social Profile @Google; http://bit.ly/ddD1gv
################################################

[Ben]

Actually, mail clients (when you're setting up an account) usually have a field with a label ("imap host:", or "pop host"), or something like that. Thunderbird 3 has moved away from that, now detecting your host automatically from your e-mail address and then telling you what protocol it's using, but the protocol still remains visible to the user.

Other programs, like IRC clients and FTP clients, only use one protocol (except, FTP clients might use FTPS, or something like that), so they don't absolutely have to show the protocol (if you're using an *IRC* or *FTP* client, you expect it to use one of those protocols). A *Web* browser, on the other hand, can browse HTTP, HTTPS, FTP and FTPS, and they can route other protocols to programs which can understand them, or even implement them themselves (in plugins, extensions, etc.), in rare cases. Web browsers are dynamic beasts, and the protocol in the URL helps us to understand what part of that beast we're in contact with.

...besides, removing the protocol actually violates the url-spec[0] (btw, it's referred to as the "scheme" there, not "protocol"). If it's not a URL, then what is it?

On 04/15/2010 11:17 PM, Aaron Toponce wrote:

I think the reason should be quite obvious. At least, I don't think it
should be spelled out. However, http:// is the default protocol of the
web, and as a result, the browser. So, why should the browser be
communicating to you that it's using http://, when that's already
understood? If it's not understood, why should it matter? The only thing
that should matter, is when the browser is being used in a manner that
it was not intended for.

Browsers are the only application that I am aware of that communicate
their default protocol to the user. Every browser across the board. Why?
IRC clients don't tell you they're using irc://. SSH clients don't tell
you they're using ssh://. SMTP clients don't tell you they're using
smtp://. IMAP and POP3 don't tell you they're using imap:// and pop://.
Even many FTP clients don't tell you they're using ftp://. So, why
should the browser be any different?

  

--

[Floby]

Hello everybody

today there was an automatic update of my webbrowser which, as you
guessed is chromium.

Let's say I'm viewing some lolcats at http://icanhascheezburger.com/
from my RSS Reader. Isn't this one cute ?
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2010/04/15/funny-pictures-home-teh-bacon/
? but when I press [V] (view original article in Google Reader) the
actual URI displayed in the address bar is
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2010/04/15/funny-pictures-home-teh-bacon/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+ICanHasCheezburger+(I+CAN+HAS+CHEEZBURGER%3F)
. But since I want to share this link with my friend on Emesene, I
don't copy the whole link (because it's ugly, it isn't useful and i
would distort some stats). Of course as Aaron "Loudy" Toponce stated,
COPY-PASTE is NOT broken when you copy a whole adress because it is
identified as a web object... well played. But it does no work with a
truncated address. and THAT is a bug and not a *feature*. Let's count
and compare how many keystrokes are necessary to do these actions in
both cases:
old: v, Ctrl+L, Selecting the part of the URI I want (approx: 8
keystrokes), Ctrl+C, Alt+Tab{1,n}, Ctrl+V -> 17 ~ 20
new: v, Ctrl+L, Selecting the part of the URI I want (approx: 8
keystrokes), Ctrl+C, Alt+Tab{1,n}, Ctrl+V, Home, h, t, t, p, :, Maj+/,
Maj+/ -> 27 ~ 30
it's not huge, but the difference is quite obvious. (and I don't count
the time spend sending links that don't work, because I figure i'll
somehow get used to it)

Chromium was counter-intuitive when I first used it. But I eventually
adopted it because I can do almost anything without moving my fingers
away from the keyboard to the mouse with lots a shortcuts and
automatic functionnalities. But removing the http:// is just silly, as
well as not giving the possibility to the user (that's me!) to switch
back to old behaviour. Of course, I know how you guys are and some
will tell me "comment that part of code and recompile your chromium,
dumbass" :
- I don't have time to spend on these things
- I didn't compile my chromium
- I really hope this isn't hard-coded :D (because in this case I would
have to laugh)

Anyway I disagree with most of the "evolutions" enumerated above. if
everything "geeky" is moved to buttons, i'll have to use my mouse
which is (relatively) far away from my keyboard, that'll force me to
change the way I do things to a way that is slower ; why ? I can see
from here the next Chrome ad: "surf the web even slower !". It's a
really bad practice to change something with no way of switching back
to previous behaviour. Farout said: "I like windows 7 explorer which

eliminated the slashes which you eye
has a hard time parsing and replaced it with subdirectory drop down
lists"

I like it too actually. I use Nautilus which has had this feature for
a moment, it is still possible to switch to old-fashioned linux
absolute path display (which are great to browser through hidden
folders) I don't use it most the time, but I know it's there when I
need it (and it happens)

To those of you who say "99% of the users (don't know what it means|
won't notice it|prefer it that way)" I'll reply with the following:
- use percentage when you know what you're talking about.
- I noticed, I didn't like it, I know what it means
- even if I'm part of just 1% of the users, many people ask me for
advice (because I'm the "computer guy" to speak simply) and if the
development of chromium is headed this way, I will have to tell them
that everything changes with no warning, no explanation, and insults
when you complain.

I switched from Firefox to Chromium because FF had become veeeeery
slow and all "clicky". don't tell me your doing the same with
Chromium, please.

As I thought the role of the address bar was to indicate the URI of
the current document, I conculde my message with two links explaining
how URI should be formed (note that it is nowhere written that the
protocol should be implicit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme#Generic_syntax
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986

On 16 avr, 15:46, Alexander Skwar <a.sk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/4/16 Wiiboy <jordon...@gmail.com>

>
> > > a not irrelevant number of users who DO notice the change and oppose
> > > it.
>
> > Just because there's a vociferous few with one opinion does not mean
> > they represent the majority.
>
> Just because there's a quite mass, it doesn't mean that this
> mass is in favor of the change. The opposite MIGHT be true:
> It takes time and energy to complain about something. I don't
> have the numbers at hand, but IIRC for every one "customer"
> that complains, a much larger number of customers just turns
> away and/or gives "bad PR" on other channels.
>
> > Regardless, he debate here is not whether you _like_ it.
>
> Yes, it is. It's one of the reasons and it's a valid one.
>
> >  If it is,
> > stop complaining: that's not a reason.  Otherwise, we need a real
> > reason this actually breaks something.
>
> Those have been given as well.
>
> Alexander
> --
> ↯    Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣http://alexs77.soup.io/    ↯

> ↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.sk...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77  ↯
>
> --
> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[Trevor Bourget]

this is an interesting viewpoint to consider that the browser tab becomes
a different application by switching protocols.
what about using color coding in the tab to indicate the content?
then the location of the content can be displayed in completely
protocol-specific way and
maybe there could be a separate button to show/hide a text field
containing the canonical url syntax.
-- trevor

Trevor Bourget
Qualcomm Innovation Center (QuIC) Inc.

[Portman]

> I like windows 7 explorer which eliminated the slashes which you eye
> has a hard time parsing and replaced it with subdirectory drop down
> lists,

The Windows 7 explorer analogy is apt. Let me set up the correct
analogy:

Imagine if the Windows team had removed the characters "c:\" from the
explorer address bar whenever you were looking at your C drive. Of
course, when looking at another drive, the drive letter would appear.
But since the overwhelming majority of computer users have a C drive,
that is the "default" and displaying "c:\" communicates no data.
That's similar to how the current implementation in Chrome Dev is
setup.

Now, what Microsoft actually did when redesigning the address bar in
explorer, is that they replaced the address bar with a dynamic
"breadcrumbs with jump-list" which allows you to visualize your
current location on the file system and jump to other folders with
ease. However, when you click into the address bar, these breadcrumbs
disappear, and you see the full path in all it's glory. What Microsoft
did is present a simplified interface, but preserved the old syntax
for those who want to directly manipulate the address bar. I think the
Chromium team could take some cues from that design, and present a
radically simplified view of the current resource, that changes to the
actual URL when the box is selected.

It's been suggested in numerous places [1] that the "http://" should
re-appear when the omnibox has focus. That's what Mobile Safari does.
That's what Windows 7 Explorer does (thanks for the analogy farout).
And that would eliminate the current set of copy/paste bugs.

[1] Places where I've seen this:
Issue 41457 @21, @42
Issue 41493 @4
Hacker News discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1263512

[farout]

I see http://, https:// more analogous to FAT, FAT32, NTFS all
internal necessities but superfluous to the information
The omnibox should have the Microsoft dynamic address bar
"breadcrumbs with jump-list" it would be a sub-tabbing of pages in the
same domain. Tabs are for domains and breadcrumbs with jump-list are
the pages in the domain that have been visited.

This is another battle in the browser wars. Chrome, Firefox, IE.
MS lost lots of market share to Firefox among even non-technos because
of tabbing feature.
MS has caught up on the UI features. Unfettered competition is great
however motivated if only by hate for MS.

The UI is the biggest sales promotion tool of all the browser
features.
Sure speed is a big seller but only works to close the deal. You have
got to get the customer to walk in the door to buy and the UI on
display in the store window has got to first catch the eye of the
customer.

Getting rid of the http:// or the features of the omnibox requires
very close inspection to see the advantages and the potential
customers will just ho hum Chrome as it has not differentiated itself
from the competition in any dramatic visible way

So if you want to win, you have to be dramatic with the first
impressions.

Locate the browser controls at the bottom of the window. The window is
read top to bottom and your brain automatically refreshes the URL in
the context of the content just read and offering the tab selection
possibilities after reading the content without eye movement follows
good ergonomic design and saves time. Chrome would get wide acceptance
in the industry beating IE if promoted as the fastest browser and the
only ergonomic browser available.

our culture has been diminished by not just tabs but by the whole
desktop matrix, tree displays, pull down menus, and lists of every
kind. We programmers just foisted those constructs on the consuming
public because they map to the internal software structures easily and
this whole technology has been processing power limited since day1.
What INTEL gave MS took away. Finally with W7 and with Chrome
execution speed that paradigm has changed.

our culture has been diminished in the sense that it has forced a
whole generation to view life using a closed world assumption (If it
is not in the database it does not exist). A closed world assumption
is good for computer database access but is not good for living a full
life.Yes your life and my life has been restricted by the computer
tool that we use a large percentage of our days. The perception of a
closed world has to rub off on certain users and they have curtailed
their creativity and innovation as a result. The truth is that we live
in a open world and it is full of possibilities. It is a matter of
inventing and using the tools that reveal those possibilities.

The way the computer has warped our perceptions is subtle and
insidious and the man machine interface has affected negatively our
visual processing and our brains capacity to process new information.
The design of the PC/MS/Linux/MAC existing man machine interface has
been designed in a free wheeling fashion with little or no
consideration of what is optimum for us human animals! Just a little
example but by no means a complete illustration of the nuances of the
of an optimum UI is:

A. Browser controls at the top of the screen interfere with finding
the first line of information on the page
B. Reading web page experience is not like reading a book
C. Repeated reading of the browser controls to find the page content
is a waste of time
D. time and motion analysis could be used to determine the optimum the
placement of the browser controls
E. The visual cortex must perform pattern recognition in complicated
browser control to find the top of the information page
F. The browser controls are secondary to the users processing of
information on the page
G. The browser control buttons should be placed for those user that
read right to left vs. left to right
H. The visual cortex must perform motion detection and pattern
matching which would distract the user if there were any
Changes to the top of the screen other than the expected new
information
I. Changes and motion in the image at the bottom of the screen would
be less distracting
J. The windows desktop controls are optimally placed at the bottom of
the screen which requires the user to constantly
move his eyes from the top to the bottom to operate the browser and
the desktop.
K.The browser controls placement at the top was a marketing decision
to hype the branding not an engineering decision
L. The chrome browser page thumbnail does not aid the user to
recognize visited pages because the image does not include an image of
the browser controls which is how you remembered the screen

We can conclude that the placement of the browser controls at the
bottom is the optimum placement. And when placing the browser controls
at the bottom of the screen no code need to be written to implement
full screen mode in the chrome browser as the UI would be full screen
by default.

So what is ergonomic about placing the browser controls at the bottom
of the window.

The human brain and specifically the visual cortex was designed/
created/evolved to insure survival. It has specific features which
quickly detect changes in the visual field. If it were not so then the
flick of the lions ear would be missed and the human very quickly
becomes dinner. Now look at the screen as if it were a view on the
African veldt. Motion or any change on the horizon (the top of the
screen) arms and even triggers the fight or flight response while
motion at your feet (the bottom of the screen) needs to be very
extreme to trigger the same response. Out there where you aren’t is
unknown and potentially lethal while where you are is known and
benign.

Reading information and assimilating the same requires use of the
visual cortex when done properly and the visual cortex features of
motion detection cannot be shut off at will except by some gurus in
Napal. PC users of internet browsers are constantly stressed because
of this motion on the horizon and it is an impediment to good
learning.

Monitors, for the most part, are designed giving consideration to
ergonomics.
One of the design considerations is the minimum width of the bezel and
placement of logos and buttons on that bezel.

The minimum bezel width is dictated by the preciseness of the edge
finding process of the visual cortex
Too thin and the eye will attempt to focus on what is behind the
monitor causing eye strain in the cornea
The monitor controls are very small and even hidden underneath or
behind a door
If they are obtrusive then your eye wants to focus on them rather than
what is on the screen

So just realizing the ergonomic design that goes into monitors and the
fact that browser controls are a secondary consideration to the
displayed information and everybody on the planet reads top to bottom
the browser controls must be placed at the bottom

So how does placing the browser controls at the bottom of the window
saves time?

Perform this experiment. If the webmail presentation in you browser is
like mine, right beneath the browser tabs the first line of the page
is the " zameric...@gmail.com | My Groups | Favorites |
Profile | Help | Sign out" stuff. Now find it and look down then find
it again and repeat. Pay attention to what your eyeballs do. It is a
three step process your eyes locate the monitor bezel then the browser
controls then positions downward to read the first line of the page.

Now go to full screen and unless you have a bunch of post notes stuck
to your monitor your eyeballs only move once to read the first line of
the page.

Now in full screen mode once your brain is conditioned and familiar do
you feel a sense of power and control over the page that you didn't
experience before.Every paragraph is right where you left it and that
obnoxious browser control does not even cross your mind.

You will ask yourself what is the big deal with two eye movements
versus one which take a split second to begin reading the page. Well
just do the math
1.5B computers * 0.1 seconds per eyeball movement * 100 page loads per
day / 3600 / 24 /365
= 575 lost man years world wide per day

People don’t really want change, any change at all. But we progress,
as we must, if we are to survive.

We're all on planes. Life is dangerous and complicated and it's a long
way down.
- So you're afraid of change?
- No, you're afraid to change.
- You'd rather imagine that you can escape instead of actually try,
because if you fail, then you got nothing. Then you'll give up the
chance of something real so that you can hold on to hope.
- The thing is, hope is for sissies.

Dramatically change the UI and they will come.

farout


PS
Other UI enhancements
1. I would also add a feature which highlights the line of text on
left click not on a link to aid finding where you left off reading as
when the local fauna in the office interrupts your reading for some
lame brain reason.

2. Also put the nagging about missing plugins at the bottom of the
window. The top of the window is reserved for the first line of
content and alerts about security issues or about connection issues.
Like for example if you click a link and the page is not found because
of browser inability to carry out the action then show the alert in a
bar at the top with the page being navigated from displayed below
it .. The user can see where he was and where he wanted to go but was
frustrated maintaining his train of thought.

3. Put a box border around the status information so your eye can
easily find it.like was done for the find box.

[Ben]

Déjà vu? Or am I just going insane?

Dispite my possible insanity, I would like to point out that this
discussion is about the protocol/scheme being hidden (~5% of your
message), and not about everything else.

First impressions are important, but as some might say, "it's the
details that count". Sure you can wow and bewilder people with your
"browser controls below" and other such "never before seen features",
but what people will notice are the little details that you put into the
browser (if they keep using it after seeing the new interface with the
controls on the bottom).

But I digress... this should be discussed in the thread you started,
with an appropriate subject; not in this one. We (I speak mostly for
myself, but I'm sure others do too) appreciate your input, but you can't
post your idea in every thread that speaks of some change in the
browser. It's impolite, and it disrupts discussion.

[farout]

Its the UI. Its the UI. Its the UI.

The Chrome browser design is all about speed of rendering and speed of
java script.
The Chrome browser design should also be about the speed that the
users can operate the browser controls.

Half the threads here are about the UI.

The superfluousness http:// slows down the user to see and find the
domain name. - Lose it!!!!!
The slashes in the URL slows down the user parsing - Lose them!!!!
The flyover link status is hard to see. - Fix it!!!!!
The browser controls take up to much space at the top of the window. -
Lose them!!!!
The browser controls at the top of the window interferes with finding
the first line of the page content. - Lose it!!!!
Full Screen is preferred browser embodiment - Then make it so!!!!
A line marker is vital to identify the last line read - Add it!!!!!!
Connection failures stop the flow of thought requiring the back button
- Change it so the back button is not required!!!!!
The potential of the page thumbnail view is unrealized because the
thumbnail does not show the context and the exact window contents (the
topography of the tabs) - Fix it!!!
The omnibox loses its virtue after the keywords are converted to that
cryptic search engine URL - Preserve the keywords and lose the cryptic
URL!!!!!
The omnibox is your home. The home button is no longer needed. - Lose
it!!!!!
The tabs for pages in the same domain detract from tabs - Lose
them!!!!
A dynamic "breadcrumbs with jump-list omnibox is leading edge. Add
it!!!!

The Chrome browser is nearing completion!

We cannot be narrow minded and debate minutia till the cows come home.
We have got to look at the UI as an integrated whole to satisfy the
demand of the users in one swoop.
We have got to base the UI decisions on sound engineering principals.
And the UI is the first impression for the consuming public and must
have features which differentiate it from the competition.

No. it is said that the devil is in the details of implementation.
Sales is all about marketing hype.
I want Chrome to be an ergonomic browser.
I want Chrome to be a time saver not an eye strainer.
I want minimum key strokes, button pushes and mouse movements to get
the information.
I want all techno-speak gibberish removed from the UI.

Information is power. And in know way should the browser hinder the
access to the information.

Farout

PS
The ease to implement Chrome browser extensions to further process
information and the potential for spin off profit making enterprises
and small businesses will make the Chrome browser the leader for the
next 10 years but the UI browser controls have got to be moved out of
the way.

[Ben]

You seem to want to slim or remove a lot of browser UI... maybe you'd
like Links2 (minimal browser), or maybe Opera (you can put all but the
menu bar on the bottom, and the tab-bar can be set to hide when you
don't need it). If you want the kind of change you're proposing, you're
better off either making a new browser of your own (Google could make
another, but I don't know if they would), or using one which already has
those features. Otherwise, if you make those changes to a browser which
is already used by many people, you risk making people not want to use
the browser because they think it might change from under them again.

[PJC]

We return you to your original programming:

I think that despite some of the 'heated' discussion, and the
hijacking of the thread to the generic UI issues of one commenter,
some valuable points have been raised.

The *ORIGINAL* question in this thread *was* "Why was the decision
taken to hide http:// in the omnibox?" - Alexander Skwar (paraphrased
here by me).

* So far the closest thing to an 'answer' has been:

"The justification for the change, is it is understood that the
browser already communicates over http:// by default. There is no

reason to continue to communicate this to the user..." - Aaron
Toponce.

I'll ignore the ad hominem attack on me for not 'reading the emails',
because I had read them all, and this was the first time that this
particular rationale had been posited as the reason for *removing* the
protocol display, rather than a justification for not bringing it
back. There's a big difference, actually.

* I (and I think others) raised the issue of inconsistent behaviour
regarding 'other' protocols (which are shown), to which the response
has been:

"It's not inconsistent at all. http:// is default, https:// and ftp://
are not. Don't display what is already default. Only display what

isn't. That's not inconsistent in the least" - Aaron Toponce.

I'd tend to disagree with that statement -- the inconsistency is in
the display of *any protocol* not whether one is 'default' or not.
For consistency, surely we should either use symbols (the globe, the
lock, etc), the actual protocol, or (preferably) both, in *all* cases.

* A further point has been raised by a number of commenters, that the
RFC definition of a URI *includes* the protocol/scheme (an example
below):

"...besides, removing the protocol actually violates the url-spec

<http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/url-spec.txt>[0] (btw, it's referred

to as the "scheme" there, not "protocol"). If it's not a URL, then

what is it?" - Ben.

Nobody has as yet (so far as I can see) responded to this. Now, there
can be an argument that the omnibox/addressbar is *not* presenting the
URL to the user, but some other "reference to the below content".
That would seem to be a valid argument, but raises a lot of questions
as to what should be presented in the omnibox, and in what manner.

One proposal has been a 'breadcrumb' trail-type display, but I do not
see how this translates well into the myriad of different URLs that
are used, particularly those that make page selections using
parameters rather than paths. Let's not forget, a URL is not (only) a
path.

I would also (out of sheer interest) like to know if Aaron is a Chrome/
Chromium developer, or just another of us 'users' expressing a
viewpoint. I note he's using an '@gmail....' email address, not a
chromium one.

Thanks - and it'd be nice if we could stick to the original topic of
posts, *especially* when it's one that many people seem to feel is an
important one!

-PJC

[Alexander Skwar]

I'm just going to comment on this:

| The superfluousness http:// slows down the user to see and find the
domain name. - Lose it!!!!!
| The slashes in the URL slows down the user parsing - Lose them!!!!

http:// slows down? That's why I suggested to make the domainname
stand out more. I suggested to write http:// in light gray on white
background and the domainname in black. Everything after the
domainname should be written in gray.
Issue solved, without having to hide important informaton.

/ - they are an elemental part of the URL. Cannot be lost, at least
not, when actually dealing with the URL. And any Windows Explorer 7
analogy doesn't work, because it might lead users to think that they
could click on the "directory" and this might take them to non
existant pages.

Eg. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62B1CG20100312 vs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/

Didn't read further. It's WAY too much.

Alexander

2010/4/18 farout <zameric...@gmail.com>:

--
Alexander
--
↯  Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/ ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77 ↯

[Alexander Skwar]

Oh, commenting on this:

PS:
The ease to implement Chrome browser extensions to further process
information and the potential for spin off profit making enterprises
and small businesses will make the Chrome browser the leader for the
next 10 years but the UI browser controls have got to be moved out of
the way.

Firefox extensions are also VERY EASY to implement and they have much
more power (which is by design, of course). So, if easy extensions
mean anything, then Chrome has still some way to go...


2010/4/18 farout <zameric...@gmail.com>:

--
Alexander
--
↯  Lifestream (Twitter, Blog, …) ↣ http://alexs77.soup.io/ ↯
↯ Chat (Jabber/Google Talk) ↣ a.s...@gmail.com , AIM: alexws77 ↯

[farout]

Between November and December, Internet Explorer dropped a significant
0.92 percentage points (from 63.61 percent to 62.69 percent) and
Firefox dipped 0.11 percentage points (from 24.74 percent to 24.63
percent). Chrome jumped a sizeable 0.71 percentage points (from 3.92
percent to 4.63 percent), passing Safari, which moved up 0.10
percentage points (from 4.36 percent to 4.46 percent). Opera, on the
other hand, kept steady at 2.31 percent, though as we reported last
week, we expect big things from the little guy.

> Chromium Discussion mailing list: chromium-disc...@chromium.org

[farout]

----------------------------------------

On Apr 18, 3:12 am, PJC <pcutm...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that despite some of the 'heated' discussion, and the
hijacking of the thread to the generic UI issues of one commenter,
some valuable points have been raised.

The *ORIGINAL* question in this thread *was* "Why was the decision
taken to hide http:// in the omnibox?" - Alexander Skwar (paraphrased
here by me).

----------------------------------------
WHY is such a big question and requires a big answer as it encompasses
the whole corporate culture and Chrome strategy that motivates the
Chrome developers.The Chrome developers have a goal and a mission that
as a group can be deduced from postings here and on various blogs and
on marketing pages. Here for example - http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/index.html
"Simplicity Chrome's browser window is streamlined, clean and simple.
Chrome also includes features that are designed for efficiency and
ease of use." Now individual developers may get a wild hair and do
something inconsistent with the goals of the team but in the case of
this http:// bro ha ha I think not.

Which is simpler and easier to read?

http://www.glennbeck.com/828/

www.glennbeck.com/828/

www.glennbeck.com [828]^

As long as copy paste cut all work in 99.99% of the cases then no harm
no foul.
To make it even simpler and to remind the reader of the context of the
URL
I would copy the entire anchor text to the omnibox along with the
hidden URL gibberish.

this example taken from the google search page
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Restoring+Honor+Rally

and clicking on the google entry "Bus Trip Info Glenn Beck's Rally
Restoring Honor at the Lincoln ...the hidden URL gibberish is
http://www.wesurroundrochester.com/calendar/12143259/

The omnibox would display "www.wesurroundrochester.com - [Bus Trip
Info Glenn Beck's Rally Restoring Honor at the Lincoln]" and a right
click menu would support copy of link, text, or both including the
html tags for easy posting to message boards. And pressing the back
button the link should be highlighted to mark your place in the page
so you can continue reading. Information is what it is all about. You
read you click you backup and read some more. FACILITATING THIS BASIC
ACTION IS CRUCIAL IN THE DESIGN OF THE UI.

----------------------------------------

On Apr 18, 3:12 am, PJC <pcutm...@gmail.com> wrote:
"...besides, removing the protocol actually violates the url-spec
<http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/url-spec.txt>[0] (btw, it's
referred
to as the "scheme" there, not "protocol"). If it's not a URL, then
what is it?" - Ben.

----------------------------------------
The omnibox is the UI and must meet standards of simplicity and ease
and speed and ergonomics and has nothing to do with the browser
internals where the URL standards must be met.

You complain about hijacking a thread (pattern of thought) when it was
exactly on the point of Chrome design goals yet some support the
browser hijacking the users train of thought by injecting %@http://
^*(653 jibberish into the omnibox.

Remove all gibberish from visibility in the omnibox and hide the URL
just like on a web page link. Put all browser controls at the bottom
of the window to give stark differentiation of the Chorme product from
competitors and because it is ergonomic.

farout

PS
I love the omnibox! Make it a drop down.
the first line is the anchor text
the second line is the key words that were used in the search engine
(if page was opened from a search page entry)
the third line would be visited pages subtabed in the domain (similar
to W7)
the forth line would be the gibberish(with the http:// to satisfy the
anal)

And make the omnibox a tool accesable by extension code ( the data
managed by the omnibox may not be accessable for security reasons but
an extension could sure use the omnibox tool and fill it with the
extensions own collected data. But alas I dost ask to much of a social
network to discuss intellectuality without all the emotional dribble.
If you read this far and were offended by what I just said then it is
you to whom I speak. A critical thinker would just ignore it and make
at least a modicum of effort to study and research and question all
the highly technical derivations, logic and lexicon I just presented
above and in previous posts while the small of mind will critisize the
pucntuation and etiquette.If you only read this last line you missed
the juicy parts above buried in this paragraph.