Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Apr 2010 11:57 UTC, submitted by Anonymous
Google Now this is something that I find really interesting. We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don't, you're demonstrably wrong), but Google recently made a change in the developer version that ruffled some feathers: the URL field will no longer show the "http://". This made a lot of people very upset.
Order by: Score:
Hiding complexity?
by TommyCarlier on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:24 UTC
TommyCarlier
Member since:
2006-08-02

I don't think it's about hiding complexity. It's just about hiding something that doesn't really have to be displayed. When you type in a URL, do you always type "http://"? Why does it have to be displayed? Because we're used to it? I think it's a natural evolution, just like Windows Explorer (and file managers in other operating systems) has replaced the text-based address bar with a more logical breadcrumb control.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hiding complexity?
by boulabiar on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:28 UTC in reply to "Hiding complexity?"
boulabiar Member since:
2009-04-18

I am with this PoV.

What are they to be always displayed ? Most of sites are http/https, so removing this and adding a key icon to precise https sites is better.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hiding complexity?
by Doc Pain on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Hiding complexity?"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I am with this PoV.


Partially, I am, too. I may explain this.

What are they to be always displayed ? Most of sites are http/https, so removing this and adding a key icon to precise https sites is better.


I would rather prefer a static setting through the browser setup - the advantage is obvious: Because the default is OFF, average users aren't bothered. Advanced users know how to switch schema display to ON, so if they intendedly require it, they know where to do it.

As it has additionally been explained in the linked "bug discussion", copying the URI from the input field will include the schema, so it's easy to transfer the URI from the browser to somewhere else maintaining full standard compliance - and standard is to keep the schema. (The importance to keep the schema with the URI is that the schema is an essential part of the URI, and often programs decide on what specific mechanism to use in combination with a certain schema - remember, there's more than just HTTP and FTP.)

By the way, have you noticed that the example in the "bug discussion" is shortened to "www.google.com/" - you see the closing slash. Why hasn't this been removed, too? (Of course I know what it indicates, but does the average user know - or need to know?) That's a bit confusing. In cases where the default is taken, more shortening is possible, up to "www.google.com" - no schema, no slash.

As you said, boulabiar: Most sites are HTTP anyway. If you use the browser to browse something else, for example a FTP directory, the default should be to display the ftp:// schema anyway, regardless of the setting, just to make sure there's no confusion.

In most cases, the address bar is not for entering information, it's mostly to show "where you are", and given the fact you're using a web browser, you're on a web site, so http:// is the most common schema for this. Or tell me: When have you seen someone entering an URI manually, including the schema?

Even if most advanced users won't like this chance, they will be able to live with it. As I am not a Google Chrome / Chromium advanced user (I still prefer Opera) advanced user, it even doesn't matter to me, so let the developers have their change. :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Hiding complexity?
by btrimby on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hiding complexity?"
btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

I have seen people meticulously type in addresses, including the "http://", and I think they may start wondering why "The darn computer" is removing what they type. Now, some might just ignore it after trying to re-type it a few times. But maybe they'll use another browser which doesn't have a "bug" which removes part of what they type.

(Yes, I'm aware that there are other things that get changed when you go to a website. But the http:// has usually only been changed to https:// which is accompanied by additional information)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Hiding complexity?
by Delgarde on Sun 18th Apr 2010 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Hiding complexity?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I have seen people meticulously type in addresses, including the "http://", and I think they may start wondering why "The darn computer" is removing what they type. Now, some might just ignore it after trying to re-type it a few times. But maybe they'll use another browser which doesn't have a "bug" which removes part of what they type.


Uh, if they can't understand what's happening, what are the odds that they have the technical knowledge to download a different browser? Or, for that matter, that they're using Chrome in the first place?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Hiding complexity?
by ichi on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:51 UTC in reply to "Hiding complexity?"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

I think it's a natural evolution, just like Windows Explorer (and file managers in other operating systems) has replaced the text-based address bar with a more logical breadcrumb control.


I don't find breadcrumb to be any more logical (more like rather annoying, if anything) but maybe it's just me.
I seriously hope we don't get the breadcrumb trend implemented in web browsers address bars any time soon.

Reply Score: 3

What Is A URL?
by softdrat on Mon 19th Apr 2010 03:00 UTC in reply to "Hiding complexity?"
softdrat Member since:
2008-09-17

>>When you type in a URL, do you always type "http://"?<<

Heck no! Sometimes I type "ftp://". Sometimes I type "SIP:"

Why does Chrome think that "URL" == "http://"?

"There are more things in heaven and URL, Google,
Than are dreamt of in your Chrome." - Shakespeare

Reply Score: 1

Great analogy
by MissingBeOS on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:24 UTC
MissingBeOS
Member since:
2010-01-26

I just had to say that I love the analogy of the mangled corpses ;) Perfect!

Reply Score: 3

Nice idea but...
by Korbinus on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:27 UTC
Korbinus
Member since:
2008-03-18

I like the idea of an icon for showing the scheme, but I'm afraid this will confuse non-IT users anyway.

Reply Score: 2

Why do you call this *wrong*?
by GraphiteCube on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:47 UTC
GraphiteCube
Member since:
2009-04-01

"We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don't, you're demonstrably wrong)"

I wonder why not loving Google Chrome/ Chromium is considered as "WRONG"? Are you trying to force the others to love something you like? You are trying to control the others!

Reply Score: 16

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

"We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don't, you're demonstrably wrong)"

I wonder why not loving Google Chrome/ Chromium is considered as "WRONG"? Are you trying to force the others to love something you like? You are trying to control the others!


crimethink doubleplusungood big browser is watching you

Reply Score: 12

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

It's just that Thom reserves his right to insult others, while "normal" users would be banned for the same.

I hate Chrome. I hate it's privacy invading features. I hate that Ctrl-Q doesn't work in the Linux version. I hate that it doesn't play well at all with KDE Desktop. I hate the non-standard placement of its tabs.

But hey, it's just me. And according to Thom my whole mindset is just wrong....

Reply Score: 3

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

I mean...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Reply Score: 9

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I don't know what you're talking about. Words clearly always convey only and exactly their literal meaning. Thom was clearly calling a large chunk of his readership idiots. Clearly. Obviously.

And he must be burned for it. Burned. With fire!

Reply Score: 3

jboss1995 Member since:
2007-05-02

this may be weird to some of us but some people in other countries do not understand sarcasm. and please do not try to explain it to them it will only confuse them more. truly, they may be better off not knowing. and in thoms defense he does post most of the articles on osnews. maybe with a lot of opinion but he does support osnews.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's just that Thom reserves his right to insult others, while "normal" users would be banned for the same.


Yeah, because I *never* get insulted on this website.

Reply Score: 4

abdavidson Member since:
2005-07-06

When you come out with crud like this comment and your ridiculous post about Opera Mini on the iPhone it isn't really much of a surprse you get insulted... you're insulting everyone else by this kind of rubbish.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

and your ridiculous post about Opera Mini on the iPhone



...?

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It's all connected, and for the record, you are obviously a shill for the anti-opera/microsoft/anti-apple/pro-apple coalition.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Really? I always thought of him as a shill for the pro-Amiga, anti-RISC, Pro-BeOS, anti-Mike OS coalition.

Edited 2010-04-20 02:45 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So we can't really expect the editors to set a good example?

Reply Score: 2

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought the sarcasm was obvious, but apparently many did not. I suppose we could add a _sarcasm_ tag, but that kind of ruins the effect - kind of like exlaining jokes as you go along. I guess that is the risk of sarcasm, especially in a more global environment, where such subtleties may be hard to spot. Anyhoo, I thought it was the gentlest of jabs against those who think everything Google does is good, but I am mostly a devout zealot of everything Bing...

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

There isn't really a lot of banning that goes on around here, but as you're obviously new around here, we'll overlook it this time.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why do you call this *wrong*?
by frood on Sun 18th Apr 2010 21:39 UTC in reply to "Why do you call this *wrong*?"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah I don't like chrome either. It gives me the creeps. Maybe it's just because I don't trust Google. Maybe because I use Linux. Also, maybe, because I spend most of my time on a 3G modem that that little extra speed of rendering goes largely unnoticed.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why do you call this *wrong*?
by Morgan on Mon 19th Apr 2010 00:22 UTC in reply to "Why do you call this *wrong*?"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It's Thom being Thom. You get used to it if you hang out here long enough.

That doesn't make him right of course; he's just the kid with the Barbie...errr...Gilmore Girls action set (this website) and in his eyes we are the action figures. If he says it's wrong for his little dolls to dislike his favorite browser, then by gum we are all WRONG!

Reply Score: 4

Some people just like a debate
by cmost on Sun 18th Apr 2010 12:57 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I don't use Chrome/Chromium so I can't comment specifically on the browser itself, however, I can't imagine what difference it would make to John Q. Public if the "http://" were displayed in the address field or not. Most browsers will automatically fill in the http and the ".com" for you if you enter a partial address. People who are griping about this are the same people that would bellyache if you tried to hang them with a new rope!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Some people just like a debate
by Creap on Sun 18th Apr 2010 13:20 UTC in reply to "Some people just like a debate"
Creap Member since:
2009-08-05

I think it's in the same path that's already been taken with "smart" permalinks. I once sat behind a (Swedish) user who noticed "default.asp" in the URL field and asked "did I do something wrong now, it says default something". Many browsers already gray out parts other than the domain name.

Is it time to drop/hide www. as well?

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Is it time to drop/hide www. as well?


You already see such "shortened forms" in advertising material, and in germany sometimes on police cars, reading "polizei.de/bla" or something similar. It's obvious you can enter it exactly that way into the browser's address bar, but many browsers complete it to a full standard URI form, including schema, server, and maybe even page name (of the default page).

Reply Score: 2

bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

Although most websites I visit don't need the www. in the address in order to be accessible, there are a few that do. Maybe it's my browser (Firefox 3.6.3), maybe it's my OS (Fedora 13 beta), or maybe it's the phase of the moon. Whatever it is, I need it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]:Drop www. ?? - NO
by porcel on Sun 18th Apr 2010 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]:Drop www. ?? - NO"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

That´s easy. Because www.mypage.com and mypage.com are two different addresses.

If you are using Apache as the webserver you will need to define an alias for both of them or the site will only answer the one that is defined.

It´s not your browser or your OS. Having said that, it is dumb of a web site admin not to define both.

Hope that helps.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]:Drop www. ?? - NO
by Morgan on Mon 19th Apr 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]:Drop www. ?? - NO"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Even better, I frequent a website that has a subdomain other than "www". In some browsers (IE 8, most notably) the "www" is automagically added to the address for me, which triggers a "not found" error. In most modern browsers this is not an issue: What I type is what I get. Fortunately, I rarely need to use IE 8, and never on my home computers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]:Drop www. ?? - NO
by google_ninja on Mon 19th Apr 2010 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[4]:Drop www. ?? - NO"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You can also set it up to have all subdomains point to one place by default, which is the smart way to set it up.

Reply Score: 2

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

Is it time to drop/hide www. as well?


NO NO NO and NO again.

Based of that line of thinking how about we just drop domains altogether and go with keywords like AOL? Wouldn't that be even easier?

Hiding http:// I can just about accept but not that.

www.example.com and example.com are two different addresses they are not the same thing.

Reply Score: 7

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

www should have never been there in the first place. Domain admins should redirect www.example.com to example.com

www is retarded. Always was and always will be.

The only way to get rid of it, is to start redirecting to the non www version and advertising the non www version. With time, we’ll get rid of the most useless part of the address.

It made sense back then, maybe, but not today.

Edited 2010-04-18 23:22 UTC

Reply Score: 1

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

www should have never been there in the first place. Domain admins should redirect www.example.com to example.com

www is retarded. Always was and always will be.


so is ftp.example.com retarded? smtp.example.com retarded? sip.example.com retarded?

No. They are sane sensible subdomains separating different services which may or may not be based on the same continent, let alone in the same data centre. Think of something on the scale of ibm.com instead of "Bobs Corner Store Website". IBM do a redirect as you state, but it is from ibm.com to www.ibm.com, same with microsoft.com

Reply Score: 4

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

Yeah, they are very retarded.

Users don't need to be forced to state the protocol they use for every link they establish. In general they don't even know what a protocol is! It should definitely not be part of the name.

You don't dial "TELEPHONE-603-913-333", much less "GSM-603-913-333".

Reply Score: 2

Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Yeah, they are very retarded. Users don't need to be forced to state the protocol they use for every link they establish. In general they don't even know what a protocol is! It should definitely not be part of the name. You don't dial "TELEPHONE-603-913-333", much less "GSM-603-913-333".


no you tell them call 603-913-333 or maybe you say email dave@lobotomik.edu, a few years back you might have said page me at 306 913 333. Once in a while you might fax 306 913 333.

[edit: damn I forgot 'dial up my bbs' at 306 913 333]

Edited 2010-04-20 15:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Is it time to drop/hide www. as well?


No, because 'www' is part of the actual address - www.domain.com and domain.com aren't necessarily the same thing.

Reply Score: 5

Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

You know what? 99.999% of the people don't know that, and don't need to know.

They *should* be the same. When they are different, it should be considered a bug, because it will be the cause of many mistakes.

Reply Score: 2

copy/paste
by bnolsen on Sun 18th Apr 2010 13:10 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

I copy/paste fom the url feed into pidgin sessions quite often. I'm guessing lots of programs don't know what to do with text if it's missing the leading http(s). Did they properly implement all the rules around partial url selection?

Edited 2010-04-18 13:16 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: copy/paste
by btrimby on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:29 UTC in reply to "copy/paste"
btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

There are numerous bugs related to their initial implementation of this that they are in the process of fixing. The pasted link is *supposed* to have the http:// displayed. This is not the case just yet, but pidgin does accept the paste and it just looks wrong, but behaves correctly.


Another bug is when you do this (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=41585):

http://ftp.mozilla.org [enter]

Becomes:

ftp.mozilla.org

If you then just hit enter, it goes to ftp://ftp.mozilla.org which is just wrong.

As a software engineer, I understand that these are possibly unforeseen bugs with the change to the behavior, but why break something that's been working for so many years? Keep in mind that those bugs will probably be fixed before they're moved into beta.

Reply Score: 6

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 18th Apr 2010 13:31 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

I’m amazed it has stuck around so long. It’s an under-the-hood thing that has zero tangible quality to end users. It still annoys me massively that some sites require you to include the “http://” if you are giving a website address—it’s insane; how are end-users supposed to remember that garglemesh?

I don’t think an icon is a solution either. http:// doesn’t /represent/ anything. It is the absence of encryption; at best. There are too many icons already in the browser and it would only serve to clutter the UI.

The confusion with http:// and whether "www" is needed or not is so bad that advertisers have started to say “search online for ‘x’” instead of giving an actual web address.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by btrimby on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

I’m amazed it has stuck around so long. It’s an under-the-hood thing that has zero tangible quality to end users. It still annoys me massively that some sites require you to include the “http://” if you are giving a website address—it’s insane; how are end-users supposed to remember that garglemesh?


The http:// comes in handy when link-ifying arbitrary data. And, obviously, when trying to link to an https login page because some site offers both.

And, I suppose, they shouldn't remember it, should they? Instead they should copy/paste or drag/drop it. That's what I do.


I don’t think an icon is a solution either. http:// doesn’t /represent/ anything. It is the absence of encryption; at best. There are too many icons already in the browser and it would only serve to clutter the UI.


That chunk of text represents the scheme / protocol used. Except when it doesn't. In Chrome/Chromium dev builds. (And apparently some mobile browsers, where it hides it from view unless you tap into it)

The confusion with http:// and whether "www" is needed or not is so bad that advertisers have started to say “search online for ‘x’” instead of giving an actual web address.


My mother will type www.google [enter]. Users are all over the place when it comes to something you have to typed. Guess what though? Not all sites require the www. Try to go to http://www.slashdot.org and see where it takes you. So the sites themselves can get rid of www from their ads if they want, except, of course, that it helps things look like an address to a web site.

I guess there's a silver lining though -- Maybe I'll hear fewer instances of backslash which should be slash. I genuinely wonder where that confusion came from. My first thoughts are the DOS/Windows path separators are to blame, but maybe it has nothing to do with that. Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/727/

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by ddc_ on Sun 18th Apr 2010 20:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

But what about the sites that have different routing rules depending on a protocol? IIRC, OpenBSD site used to route You to WWW content when was asked as http://[www/ftp].openbsd.org and to FTP content when asked as ftp://[www/ftp].openbsd.org.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 18th Apr 2010 21:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The confusion with http:// and whether "www" is needed or not is so bad that advertisers have started to say “search online for ‘x’” instead of giving an actual web address.


Really? I haven't heard that since AOL's keyword days. Where you'd see on packaging: AOL keyword "pepsi". Which Aol did both because they thought the http:// and www were too confusing as well as trying to fool people into thinking that aol was the internet and prevent them from easily switching over to other isp.

Could you provide an example from the past 5-6 years of some one just saying search for "x"?

The easiest thing to do as a website is to redirect www.example.com to http://example.com or visa versa. No user intervention required, nor any explanation. Its 2010, everyone has already figured out their own coping mechanisim for it.

Which, sadly, includes my coworker's wife opening up IE which defaults to bing, then searching for google, then entering in a web address( including www, so www.cnn.com for example) in the search bar and then clicking on it.) Changing chrome's address bar behaviour is not going to fix that mess.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 18th Apr 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Saw it just yesterday for More4, a TV channel here in the UK; and I have been seeing it increasingly on TV advertising.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 18th Apr 2010 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Okay, I'm going to have to just give up on trying to understand the UK.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Steve Jabs on Mon 19th Apr 2010 04:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Steve Jabs Member since:
2006-09-14

Found something similar.

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-pontiac

Also, it'd be neat to see the analytics on Bing searches for the term "google."

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by gary on Tue 20th Apr 2010 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
gary Member since:
2006-01-20

Could you provide an example from the past 5-6 years of some one just saying search for "x"?


This has become very common in advertising in Japan in the past few years, to the point that it's probably more popular now than showing a URL. The world is a bigger place than [insert country name] :-).

-- Gary

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Delgarde on Sun 18th Apr 2010 21:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

The confusion with http:// and whether "www" is needed or not is so bad that advertisers have started to say “search online for ‘x’” instead of giving an actual web address.


And that works *so* well, doesn't it? Remember the fuss a few months back, of people unable to find Facebook after it dropped to #2 in Google's results?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by dragossh on Mon 19th Apr 2010 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

I died a little inside. Are these people not checking any other results?
*facepalm*

Edited 2010-04-19 12:21 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by edmnc on Tue 20th Apr 2010 11:54 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
edmnc Member since:
2006-02-21

advertisers have started to say “search online for ‘x’” instead of giving an actual web address.


I suspect this is more to do with increasing pagerank, since Google supposedly counts clicks as one of the factors

Reply Score: 1

What about port numbers?
by raboof on Sun 18th Apr 2010 13:44 UTC
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

When visiting a http site, the port number is usually ':80' - you can specify another one if you wish, but if you leave it out it'll be ':80'.

It makes sense to do the same for the protocol in a web address: you can specify another one, but it'll usually be 'http://', so in that case it doesn't have to be shown.

The only inelegant part is that http and https are both common. OTOH, it's quite rare these days to have the *same* site available both secured and unsecured - usually the unsecured url just redirects to the secured version - so we can hide both 'http' and 'https' and use the 'lock' icon to show the difference.

Reply Score: 4

RE: What about port numbers?
by btrimby on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:58 UTC in reply to "What about port numbers?"
btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

I prefer consistency to hiding things that are sometimes unnecessary. But I'm just one of those crazy people who have actually used the browser with the "feature" in question and notice it as "something wrong" according to my eye.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What about port numbers?
by raboof on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:30 UTC in reply to "RE: What about port numbers?"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

I prefer consistency


Consistency is hardly ever a black-and-white thing though: for example, one could argue that hiding the port number when it's not 80 is also 'inconsistent' - however I don't think anyone would propose to always show it ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What about port numbers?
by btrimby on Sun 18th Apr 2010 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What about port numbers?"
btrimby Member since:
2009-09-30

Hiding the port number is done when it is the default port number for the scheme. I regularly use alternate port numbers on a daily basis, and it'd actually make *my* life easier if I could always see the port. I'll not bother to argue that that should be changed though. It's too late for that.

I see how you parallel the hiding of the "default scheme" and that's a fairly rational argument, but there is a factor of time involved, in the time that it's been around that will make changes like this controversial.

Someone else commented about the length of addresses and such, and that it was good to see more information. Well, even if most would consider this information unnecessary, it is information, and it is being hidden. Currently, the way the chromium devs implemented it, you can't always see the full URI without pasting it. The same thing with the port, really. I'd actually like an option in browsers to show the scheme and port no matter what.

I like the other things Chromium has started doing, such as a red skull and crossbones for self-signed sites, but I prefer to see as much explicit information as possible.

Reply Score: 2

Why does everything need to be dumbed down?
by r00kie on Sun 18th Apr 2010 13:46 UTC
r00kie
Member since:
2009-12-10

I agree with simplification and sorting out the mess that sometimes OSes can be but this may be going a notch too far.

Why?
Because you already don't need to type it. Even the www. and .com can be added with a keyboard shortcut that seems to be same for all browsers.

It may create new opportunities for phishing.

It will leave the less tech savvy users clueless wondering where "those things that used to be there" went and whether I'm really visiting by bank site or not ... for the ones that even bother to check the URI anyway.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by huwnet
by huwnet on Sun 18th Apr 2010 13:53 UTC
huwnet
Member since:
2006-11-12

Most people know that things are secure when they see the 'padlock'. Surely this is the only icon that is needed.

For most users everything else is http. The average user will never browse an FTP directory, although they might follow a link that takes them to an FTP download

Edited 2010-04-18 13:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Lets not forget the roots
by theTSF on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:03 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

The reason why they displayed it in the first place was back in the days we used a lot of different protocols and sometimes we made new ones.

Now always showing us the full link is actually helpful because if you are learning HTML
and you go a href="www.osnews.com" vs a href="http://www.osnews.com" you can get 2 very different results. (depending on browser)

No a lot of us think that people are either IT Savvy or dumbed down idiots. But there is actually a wide scale of people out there. Some are able to make the connection of the Location Bar Text with the HTML code. If you remove that Location information then when you are making the page you are likely to make errors and when you see the rule of doing http:// first will seem really odd to you.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by crislevin
by crislevin on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:11 UTC
crislevin
Member since:
2008-03-27

I dont use chrome, and OSnews should pack its chrome love and let me be the judge.

about http://

do remember there are browsers out there that actually handles ftp protocol. like, browsers with 90+% market share?

that little space saving is not important to me.

and I dont even know why such a small, mostly meaningless change on chrome should be given special attention?

Reply Score: 3

Even more radical
by uhsf on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:42 UTC
uhsf
Member since:
2006-09-21

Firefox hides http://www. with a small script quite easily. Since many years I got rid of the location bar entirely and type URLs directly in tabs. Placed at the bottom of the window, tabs are the only part of the GUI I need to display. Also, I hate Google Chrome/Chromium (so demonstrably I wasn't brainwashed and I still can acknowledge that a web browser made by the biggest advertisement company in the world has to be the biggest software joke ever).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Even more radical
by siride on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:53 UTC in reply to "Even more radical"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

What, specifically, are the problems with Chrome that make it the biggest software joke ever?

Reply Score: 3

Comment by antwarrior
by antwarrior on Sun 18th Apr 2010 14:50 UTC
antwarrior
Member since:
2006-02-11

Honestly, I do not find this a big deal at all. Many of the arguments against this claim that it doesn't feel right or that users aren't that dumb etc. These arguments from what I have seen so far fall on the side of disrupted familiarity or on the side of unnecessary usability. At a minimum a browser should be able to understand the other protocols but it owes them nothing more than a nod or recognition. I might even go as far as to say, at the risk of sounding a bit radical, that the browser should only just be used for browsing web pages and that the other protocols do not necessarily have a place in the browser. That being said it follows that the "http://" portion of the url really does not carry any information at all to the user. The only time you might need an protocol indicator is if you are handling something different from http like ftp. Https already has a lock icon. Personally I do not understand the fuss. ... Can someone please give me a compelling reason to keep the text that indicates the protocol in the address bar?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by antwarrior
by phoenix on Sun 18th Apr 2010 18:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by antwarrior"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Can someone please give me a compelling reason to keep the text that indicates the protocol in the address bar?


Because it's part of the address.

All of the following are different addresses:
http://www.somesite.com
https://www.somesite.com
ftp://www.somesite.com
ssh://www.somesite.com
fish://www.somesite.com

The protocol is part of the URI.

This is like saying you can hide the province from all mailing addresses in BC, and everyone will just know that it's a BC address, even though the address is incomplete.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by antwarrior
by klagermkii on Sun 18th Apr 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by antwarrior"
klagermkii Member since:
2009-11-26

Following from that analogy I think it's closer to having someone write

"Planet Earth"

after every address, to prevent mail from accidentally arriving at the ISS or the Moon.

I can't imagine that in total more than 1 in 200 URLs entered into Chromium uses FTP or some other such protocol.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Planet earth is not a part of the url. That is the difference.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt

Reply Score: 3

About time!
by Zifre on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:03 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

I noticed this change a few days ago in the dev build.

I couldn't find any explanation with Google. I was thinking though, about time!

This is not about hiding complexity. This is about what makes sense. Chrome is a web browser. The normal web protocol is http. Leaving off http:// just makes things look less cluttered.

(I should note that I'm one of those people who hates it when we "dumb things down" for the Average Joe with an attention span of 2 seconds. Things should be done the right way - not the easy way. I believe this change is a step in the right direction.)

The really nice thing about this is that URLs don't get cut off as much. URLs are getting longer and longer - they are often longer than the address bar. The more you can see, the better.

Also, Chrome likes to not show you much of the URL in the bar that pops up when you hover over a link. (I really don't understand why it doesn't just use the full width of the window.) This change allows you to see more of the URL.

Also, I agree that we should just show icons instead of the protocol. My suggestions:

- a globe for http
- a lock for https
- a file/page for ftp

Edited 2010-04-18 15:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: About time!
by Tuxie on Mon 19th Apr 2010 07:46 UTC in reply to "About time!"
Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

...and this should be an animated icon for gopher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40

Reply Score: 1

The terror of complexity
by Invincible Cow on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:18 UTC
Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

Thou cannot distinguish between ftp and http in the war on terror!

Reply Score: 2

RE: The terror of complexity
by orestes on Sun 18th Apr 2010 16:18 UTC in reply to "The terror of complexity"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Perhaps they don't want users to notice when spdy:// addresses start popping up

Reply Score: 3

This is a bad idea
by Marus on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:47 UTC
Marus
Member since:
2010-04-18

I could see this change resulting in the development team I work on abandoning Chrome and moving to something else as our target browser for internal apps.

The reason behind this is Chromes handling of non-standard TLDs (which we tend to use for testing/build versions of our projects - e.g. http://project1.build - to make them short and easy to type in); it is bad enough in Chrome that if you don't type in the http:// in front of a URL with a non-standard TLD it will take you to a search page (and then ask if you meant http://whatevever) - but changing it so that every time you want to edit the URL for testing purposes you have to go back to the start of the URL and re-add http:// just makes it unusable.

Well, hopefully if they decided to switch I can convince them to switch to Safari or Opera instead of back to Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

Let them play
by eazel7 on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:51 UTC
eazel7
Member since:
2007-09-09

1) It's just in the dev channel, it might not get to the release

2) If it's not in some channel no data could be gathered about its usage, maybe it's a great idea and we can't see it

3) If you have mangled corpses, there are two problems: they're not nice and they're not healthy. One is solved a-la-apple by hiding them. The other one is solved by removing them. If you can't remove the corpses yet, please hide them because they're so disgusting that I might puke.

4) http(s):// schema is not a mangled corpse, it's a rockstar. It's the core protocol of a browser. It was so damn good that it conquered the entire web space. ftp:// gopher:// or whatever are strangers in the browser world. What is the ratio usage of http(s):// vs other:// in a Chrome Browser? I'm sure about how small the percentage will be...

5) Don't think about 'the IT Pro', 'the dummy user'. It's about humans.

Note beside: If you make things *less simple* that what they can be, you're missing something. And if you make them complex, people will not understand and that will upset everyone.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by AnythingButVista
by AnythingButVista on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:51 UTC
AnythingButVista
Member since:
2008-08-27

" We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don't, you're demonstrably wrong)..."

^ What the...? I don't love Google Chrome. The least I have to surrender my life to Google, the better! I can't even pretend I care about Google zealots thinking I'm wrong and the only reason I've replied to such a useless statement is to make sure others know it's OK to not like Google and their products.

Reply Score: 4

security
by JrezIN on Sun 18th Apr 2010 15:56 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

I think the reasons to this changes are overlooked here...
By doing these changes (together with some other in the url filed), Chrome gives more attention to the information in the URL field when this field is displaying a httpS url. Chrome already does color-coding to the url field, displaying only the domain in the normal color and the prefix and everything after the / in a more amine color.

I don't think it's only about "hiding complexity", it's *more* about security.
Google is trying to elevate the browser to the same status as the OS, it is vital to be very clear about security, and that's an important part of Chrome roots, just look at the multi-process design with process sandbox.

But well, the 'issue' aside, it's very good to see a talk with the community about the subject anyway.

Reply Score: 2

good riddens
by graigsmith on Sun 18th Apr 2010 16:03 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

as long as an icon pops up that says when it's secured i couldn't care less about that http. it's a vestigial waste of space piece of information. we don't need it.

Reply Score: 3

Blergh
by Terg on Sun 18th Apr 2010 16:12 UTC
Terg
Member since:
2010-02-24

It's insulting how a writer for a blog that intends to reach a public, goes ahead and states that you're "demonstrably wrong" if you don't like what he likes.

Claiming a product is good because of values that you hold and others might not hold, is insulting.

This is nothing more than the writer spitting his gal on something he doesn't like, and then you can't start a discussion on it, because it was only briefly mentioned and it's not the topic. So if you suddenly say you don't like this stab under the water, you're going off topic... >_>

Reply Score: 1

RE: Blergh
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 18th Apr 2010 16:40 UTC in reply to "Blergh"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It's insulting how a writer for a blog that intends to reach a public, goes ahead and states that you're "demonstrably wrong" if you don't like what he likes.


Oh lighten up. It was CLEARLY meant as a hyperbole. Don't take everything so damn seriously.

Reply Score: 1

KDE wont remove them anytime soon
by Elv13 on Sun 18th Apr 2010 17:53 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

KIO protocols are a core part of KDE. We use those ftp://, http:// or fish:// to locate ourself between the view and the data location. For a web developer, the different between http://site.com/index.htm and file://site.com/index.htm is really important. protocol:// should be improved instead of hidden, when useful, it become powerful.

Reply Score: 4

Just wrong.
by dpatch on Sun 18th Apr 2010 17:59 UTC
dpatch
Member since:
2007-08-11

Is the purpose to save 7 characters in the common case? Is that screen space so valuable? Why pick an arbitrary part of the URL? Why not hide trailing slashes? "www."? ".com"? File extensions? Why is any of it important? Remember that when entering URLs you *can* omit most of these elements, so you're not helping input complexity.

If you really want to hide complexity, just hide the entire URL bar by default. It's all opaque most of the time.

On the other hand, changing the semantics of fundamental UI interfaces (like copying some text and having the clipboard filled with something different) is just broken. So is requiring me to copy a URL to the clipboard and paste it somewhere in order to see the full text.

Of course, this is all much less significant if it's configurable.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sun 18th Apr 2010 18:35 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

but that doesn't actually address the problem of there being a pile of mangled corpses in your bedroom.


I didn't realize that was a problem.

They don't seem to mind.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by boldingd on Mon 19th Apr 2010 18:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

It might be a zoning thing -- you can't have a pile of mangled corpses in a residential zone. I'm not sure tho. My landlord sure got worked up over it.

Reply Score: 2

Why just "http"?
by OSNevvs on Sun 18th Apr 2010 18:46 UTC
OSNevvs
Member since:
2009-08-20

I would also go as far as removing the subdomain (www) and the domain name extension. There shouldn't be any domain name extension in the first place. Instead of google.com, rename to google; instead of wwf.org, use wwf, etc...When you register a domain name, you just choose a name, there shouldn't be a choice of extensions. Also, use only dots or slashes to separate elements, ie: google/forum for a forum on Google's web site, google/rss to download Google's RSS.

Reply Score: 1

Quite happy ...
by bellamyr on Sun 18th Apr 2010 19:16 UTC
bellamyr
Member since:
2010-04-18

...with the way that IE highlights the domain name in the address bar. This is one tweak too far.

Reply Score: 1

Didn't notice till now
by waid0004 on Sun 18th Apr 2010 19:30 UTC
waid0004
Member since:
2009-06-19

I've been running the latest Chrome builds (currently 5.0.375.9 dev) and I didn't notice this until now. In the context of a web browser, there are only two reasons it would matter to me personally.

1. If I copy a link from the address bar, I will certainly want the starting "http://", currently the version I use of Chrome does this.

2. If this web browser also functions as a browser of other URI types, then the other URI type identifiers are necessary. For example, if the web browser is also a file browser it may (or may not) display the starting "http://" if when I navigate to a local directory it displays the starting "file://", currently the version I use of Chrome does this.

Thus, I don't see anything wrong with this change.

Reply Score: 2

i DONT LIKE google chrime (yes, mispelled)
by nbensa on Sun 18th Apr 2010 22:35 UTC
nbensa
Member since:
2005-08-29

so what?

btw, why do I need to login TWICE here?

the first login always fails

the second login always succeed

yes, same username, same password both tries.

Reply Score: 1

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Yeah, the login form on the comments page doesn't work, this is not considered serious enough to fix, so you just have to login twice.

Reply Score: 2

welcome to 1997?
by stabbyjones on Sun 18th Apr 2010 22:43 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

I haven't typed http:// in YEARS! We're talking back in the netscape days.

As long as I can still type http, ftp, file or https into the address bar if I feel like it, I don't need to be reminded what protocol I'm using.

Reply Score: 3

Combined Search and Address Bar
by The1stImmortal on Sun 18th Apr 2010 23:17 UTC
The1stImmortal
Member since:
2005-10-20

Personally, this bothers me because Chrome doesn't have independent search and address fields. I like to use the schema part to force chrome (or at least feel like I'm forcing chrome) to treat something as an address, not a search term. This can be especially handy for internal, private domains (I know a case or two where the default site at domain name "intranet" takes them to their intranet - in chrome this is just as likely to search for "intranet" as to go to http://intranet/)

Were the Chrome address bar to be *exclusively* for addresses, then this would be OK with me, but with it doubling as a search bar, it's potentially ambiguous. If the address bar were exclusively for addresses, then displaying merely the domain there wouldn't be confusing. Search terms would be displayed in the search bar. But with a combined field, does showing say "example.com" in the address/search bar mean you're AT example.com, or you've SEARCHED for example.com?

It's good to blur the line between search and direct addressing (and of course heavily in Google's interest to do so) but it shouldn't be blurred to much - to the point where it's nearly impossible to define which you're using.

Reply Score: 1

destroys copy/paste
by sdhays on Sun 18th Apr 2010 23:19 UTC
sdhays
Member since:
2007-03-13

If I select something and copy it, my intention is to paste exactly what I see. That's the way copying and pasting works on every platform and that's what users expect. If you take out the http:// to play hide and seek, you're left with a serious problem: sometimes you want/need the http://.

You can let the user figure this out and add the http:// when necessary or you can change the way copying works, so that Chrome's copy/paste works different from EVERYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN. This can be jarring to users, experienced and novice. And it only creates another problem: what if the user didn't want the http:// copied? Either Google comes up with some magic incantation that only power users will ever know or it just lets the user delete what they don't want after pasting a URL - hardly an enhancement to usability. One step forward (being very charitable) and two to three steps back.

I say, hide it when it's not selected and show the full URL when the location bar gets focus; I don't see how that doesn't solve 99% of everyone's issues. I don't need to see the protocol while I'm commenting on OSNews.com, but sure would like to have copying and pasting work the way I expect it to in all cases.

Reply Score: 1

They also...
by Tuishimi on Mon 19th Apr 2010 00:08 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...moved the "FAVE" star to the right. It's messing with my mind!

Reply Score: 2

Can OSNews get rid of www.?
by Zifre on Mon 19th Apr 2010 00:24 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

This whole discussion just reminded me, I really hate www.

It is not necessary, and I have never seen a site where example.com did not redirect to www.example.com or vice versa.

Unfortunately, OSNews is one of those sites that redirects osnews.com to www.osnews.com. Can that be switched? It would just make things simpler. And it has nothing to do with "dumbing it down". It's just less typing, less clutter, and less incentive to use Google as a general Internet command line.

See http://no-www.org if you need more convincing.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Blomma
by Blomma on Mon 19th Apr 2010 01:53 UTC
Blomma
Member since:
2005-07-06

Some of you people need to lighten up. I tend to disagree strongly with a lot of thom's opinions, but even i realized he was just taking the piss with the chrome comment.

Anyway i wholeheartedly agree with this change and in fact main stream media has already begun to do our job for us in this regard. It's been forever since i saw billboard, ad, tv promo add the http(s) part. The only thing that matters is how it is implemented and obviously google has some work cut out for themselves in this regard. My only surprise is that apple didn't beat them to the punch in this regard.

Reply Score: 1

Omnibar
by ohbrilliance on Mon 19th Apr 2010 03:11 UTC
ohbrilliance
Member since:
2005-07-07

Since the address bar has been turned into a multi-purpose omnibar, I would have thought displaying the protocol is more important than ever, to more clearly distinguish URLs from search text/results/history. Removing the protocol makes it that much harder to know what's going on.

How will the omnibar distinguish between single word URLs hardcoded in hosts files?

As for displaying the protocol for non-HTTP addresses. That to me is like having traffic signals with only orange and red lights. It's jarring to miss the green/http.

It just feels wrong.

Reply Score: 2

But Hang On
by HappyGod on Mon 19th Apr 2010 06:35 UTC
HappyGod
Member since:
2005-10-19

This sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem.

Has there been a steep rise in panicky users calling up Google asking what 'http://' means?

I don't think so. So why mess with it?

This is fairly common with companies that are dealing with software concepts that have been around for a long time, and are desperately trying to think of something they can do to make it better/cooler.

Often, as with a painting, there comes a time when you should just walk away and stop trying to add new features. Otherwise you risk winding up with products like:

- Photoshop
- iTunes
- Microsoft Office

Of course the sales guys aren't normally thrilled with this philosophy!

Reply Score: 2

love it?
by greygandalf on Mon 19th Apr 2010 06:44 UTC
greygandalf
Member since:
2008-04-07

"We all know and love Google Chrome/Chromium (and if you don't, you're demonstrably wrong),"

Sorry, what is the sense of this phrase?
I don't love it at all. Now why should I be wrong?

Mainly, chrome has its "stupid seems simple" interface, which hides things which it should, which forces the "google look" and "google feel" upon you and which is a mix of stuff coming from other browsers.
Some people may like that philosophy, some others not.

The topic, the removal of the connection scheme, gets back onto this. I can understand why some people may like it, but I think it is plain stupid.
It is a bit like hiding file extensions on OSs where they are needed: it is just a mess that only "looks" simple but makes things worse.

Reply Score: 1

RE: love it?
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 19th Apr 2010 07:54 UTC in reply to "love it? "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't love it at all. Now why should I be wrong?


*facepalm*

No, you're not wrong. I was employing the style figure known as the "hyperbole". It is a rather common literary device that is easy to spot, and is often also used to evoke a comical effect.

"Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɜrbəli/, from ancient Greek ὑπερβολή 'exaggeration') is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally."

All people who did not grasp this was a hyperbole are idiots. AND THAT'S A HYPERBOLE TOO.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by kvarbanov
by kvarbanov on Mon 19th Apr 2010 08:28 UTC
kvarbanov
Member since:
2008-06-16

I don't really understand the reason for hiding it - is there any real benefit ? Who cares if it's there or not ? But I guess some people will get confused. Whatever ... I'm, personally, doing a lot of https://, ftp://, fish:/, sftp:// and smb:// in my Konqueror ...

Reply Score: 2

I love it!
by smoerk on Mon 19th Apr 2010 16:54 UTC
smoerk
Member since:
2009-07-10

Getting rid of useless clutter ...

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Bounty
by Bounty on Mon 19th Apr 2010 17:29 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

I have no idea what the hell the lock icon means, secure ftp? https? Samba? NFS? Something else that's supposed to be secure? "http://www.server.com" I know exactly what that means, without looking up what a globe, lock or dancing clown icon is supposed to mean.

User calls me up, I ask what's in the address field, they say "flinger.org" I visit the site and it does not look like what the user is describing. Well it could be https, ftp or http.... something else. So I ask the user well do you see any icons perhaps to the left or right of the address bar, maybe at the top of the tab or on the bottom that looks like a lock, globe, folder icon... maybe a gopher?

Actually if you're going to remove http:// then at least add the port number to give me a clue what's going on.

[edit: users will mentally remove http:// so that's why it could be something else... I just want everything to be explicit, don't hide my file extensions either.]

Edited 2010-04-19 17:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jaklumen
by jaklumen on Tue 20th Apr 2010 05:31 UTC
jaklumen
Member since:
2010-02-09

I got that Thom was being sarcastic. But I've found repeatedly that people's varying ideas of humor do not always connect up well on the Internet. It is indeed a subtle concept that can be misinterpreted, also in a variety of ways.

I like a lot of what Google is doing, but I wouldn't declare it perfect. The Debian branch of Chrome (at least what has come to Ubuntu/Mint) has problems... CSS not displaying correctly, I think, as well as fonts. I liked the faster JavaScript times, but I returned to Firefox eventually. Firefox handles WYSIWYG editing for a particular blog I use better, and I missed the Search Engine extension too much. Obviously, I'm not a big fan of the Chrome "omnibar". And I'm not so sure this new idea of hiding http:// is so fantastic, many reasons already stated here among them. http:// may be rather ubiquitous, but it would get in the way of those that understand and use the other protocols (I know a few people that still use ftp:// who aren't out-and-out techies).

(By the way, I chuckled wryly when I saw mention of the Gopher protocol struck through. I also chuckled when I looked up spdy://, after reading the comment about it, and saw what that was all about. It does seem ironic.)

Reply Score: 1

Don't like it
by Pr3st00 on Wed 21st Apr 2010 13:59 UTC
Pr3st00
Member since:
2005-12-02

Removing something the user typed is intrusive. If we have the option of omitting the protocol (and all browsers will default to http if no protocol is specified), why remove the protocol is someone has typed it in? Why don't give users a choice of setting this feature on and off?

I agree that this is not a big deal, but I don't like the way the whole thing was conducted. It's not about the feature, but all about having a choice.

Reply Score: 1