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.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alexander Skwar <alexan...@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.
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Alexander Skwar <alexan...@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.
> 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
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? :)
> > 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
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.
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 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? :)
>> > 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
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:
> 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.
> 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? :)
> >> > 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
> 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.
-- . 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
On 16 April 2010 15:57, Aaron Toponce <aaron.topo...@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*.
> 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.
> 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.
-- . 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
> 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?
>> > 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?
> 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".
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.
>>> > 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?
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.
> 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.
> > 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.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:32 AM, farout <zamericanene...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
-- Cheers,
Steve
###############################################
My Social Profile @Google; http://bit.ly/ddD1gv ################################################
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 <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?
> 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?
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-baco...)
. 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.
> > > 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.
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
> 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.
> 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 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? :)
>>> > 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
> 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.
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 " zamericanene...@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.
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.
> 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 " zamericanene...@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,
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.
