Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'www'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Site Related
    • News & Updates
    • Site / Forum Feedback
    • Member Introduction
  • News
    • General News
    • FileSharing News
    • Mobile News
    • Software News
    • Security & Privacy News
    • Technology News
  • Downloads
    • nsane.down
  • General Discussions & Support
    • Filesharing Chat
    • Security & Privacy Center
    • Software Chat
    • Mobile Mania
    • Technology Talk
    • Entertainment Exchange
    • Guides & Tutorials
  • Off-Topic Chat
    • The Chat Bar
    • Jokes & Funny Stuff
    • Polling Station

Categories

  • Drivers
  • Filesharing
    • BitTorrent
    • eDonkey & Direct Connect (DC)
    • NewsReaders (Usenet)
    • Other P2P Clients & Tools
  • Internet
    • Download Managers & FTP Clients
    • Messengers
    • Web Browsers
    • Other Internet Tools
  • Multimedia
    • Codecs & Converters
    • Image Viewers & Editors
    • Media Players
    • Other Multimedia Software
  • Security
    • Anti-Malware
    • Firewalls
    • Other Security Tools
  • System
    • Benchmarking & System Info
    • Customization
    • Defrag Tools
    • Disc & Registry Cleaners
    • Management Suites
    • Other System Tools
  • Other Apps
    • Burning & Imaging
    • Document Viewers & Editors
    • File Managers & Archivers
    • Miscellaneous Applications
  • Linux Distributions

Categories

  • General News
  • File Sharing News
  • Mobile News
  • Software News
  • Security & Privacy News
  • Technology News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 3 results

  1. As part of the Megabar address bar/Quantum bar design update 1, to improve the readability of results that appear in the dropdown of the address bar, Mozilla has removed https:// and WWW. prefixes from URLs in Firefox 75 version which is currently in Nightly. The company believes this as the right step as Chrome also does the same. However, http:// prefix will still be displayed for URLbar results and there is no change in the way Firefox displays a website URL in the address bar. “Other browsers have already taken this step, we should follow suit to enhance readability” the bug report reads. For the unknown, Mozilla has been working on the new address bar design for Firefox for some time and the new design is currently enabled by default in Firefox Nightly. Till now Mozilla hasn’t made the change in the results view so that users can visit an encrypted site without any difficulty, with most of the sites switched to HTTPS Mozilla considers this as safe move. Verdi mentioned that in order to display more meaningful content in the view, we should look into hiding https:// there. Historically we didn’t do that so that the user would know beforehand whether they’ll go to an encrypted site. Now that most sites use https, I think it makes sense to flip that around, i.e. show http:// and other protocols but hide https://. In the input we’ll still show https:// and hide http://. Changing that in the future is an option but will require more invasive changes to URI fixup. While the current awesome bar design with suggestions displayed looks wider, the megabar looks truncated or narrowed. You can see the difference between old and new address bar results with the dropping of WWW. and https:// in the below screenshots. Firefox address bar results without https:// and www Firefox normal address bar results Source
  2. Google's move to strip out the www in domains typed into the address bar, beginning with version 69 of its Chrome browser, has drawn an enormous amount of criticism from developers who see the move as a bid to cement the company's dominance of the Web. The criticism comes a few days after Chrome's engineering manager Adrienne Porter Felt told the American website Wired that URLs need to be got rid of altogether. The change in Chrome version 69 means that if one types in a domain such as www.itwire.com into the browser search bar, the www portion is stripped out in the address bar when the page is displayed. When asked about this change in a long discussion thread on a mailing list, a Google staffer wrote: "www is now considered a 'trivial' subdomain, and hiding trivial subdomains can be disabled in flags (will also disable hiding the URL scheme): chrome://flags/#omnibox-ui-hide-steady-state-url-scheme-and-subdomains." But this was contested by a poster to the list, who wrote: "This is a dumb change. No part of a domain should be considered 'trivial'. As an ISP, we often have to go to great lengths to teach users that 'www.domain.com' and 'domain.com' are two different domains, and that they may not necessarily go to the same destination. "The marketing world has done a lot of damage convincing people that 'www' is both ubiquitous and non-essential, when in fact, for some domains, the use or lack of it can be quite important to getting to the correct location." A Google staffer attempted to justify the change, writing: "The subdomains reappear when editing the URL so people type the correct one. They disappear in the steady-state display case because this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases. I think this is an OK tradeoff even in the rare case when www.foo.com is not actually the same as foo.com. (Side note: like it or not, almost no real-world users will use such a thing correctly; configuring your server like this seems like a Bad Move even if it's technically legal, because people are going to access the wrong thing, and that has been true for some time and irrespective of Chrome's UI changes.) "There are multiple real bugs here though: www.www.2ld.tld should become www.2ld.tld, not 2ld.tld (we should strip at most one m. and www.) subdomain.www.domain.com should be left as-is, not subdomain.domain.com (should only strip prefixes)." But this drew an angry response from a poster who questioned the statement "this isn't information that most users need to concern themselves with in most cases" and asked: "According to who? This is simply an opinion stated as a fact." This same individual also hit back at the statement, "(Side note: like it or not, almost no real-world users will use such a thing correctly;)", saying, "That's unfortunately, just another opinion stated as fact." This is not the first time Google has been criticised for its moves to change the fundamental structure of URLs. Its Accelerated Mobile Pages, introduced in October 2015, have been criticised for obscuring the original URL of a page and reducing the chances of a reader going back to the original website. Probably for this reason, Apple last year decided that version 11 of iOS would update its Safari browser to that AMP links would be stripped out of an URL when the story was shared. Doubts have also been expressed about the extent to which AMP links increase traffic to a website. Apart from Google staff on the mailing list referred to, nobody else thought the stripping of the "www" portion was a good idea. Another poster wrote: "This does appear to be inconsistent/improperly implemented. Why is www hidden twice if the domain is "www.www.2ld.tld"? I feel like the logic could be worked out better, eg If the root zone is a 301 to the 'www' version, removing 'www' from the omnibox would be acceptable since the server indicated the root zone isn't intended for use. "This isn't the behaviour, though. If example.com returns a 403 status, and www.example.com returns a 404 status, the www version is still hidden from the user. The www and the root are very obviously different pages and serve different purposes, so I believe the should be some logic regarding whether or not www should be hidden." "This is Google making subdomain usage decisions for other entities outside of Google. My domains and how subdomains are assigned and delegated are not Google's business to decide," said yet another poster. Another view was: "If the objective is to make URLs less confusing an emphasise the main domain name, why not just render parts in gray or make the main part bold. Wouldn't that achieve the same goal without essentially breaking the Internet?" And another poster wrote: "Since this is essentially a security vulnerability, is Google going to get a CVE assigned for it? It would make it easier to help affected users make sure this is patched on their end." iTWire has contacted Google for comment. Source
  3. Google has made it no secret that it wants to reinvent how you visit websites on your browser by eventually getting rid of web addresses altogether. With the launch of Chrome 69, Google stunned users last week with a surprising decision to no longer display the “www” and “m” part of the URL in the Chrome search bar, but user backlash forced Google to soften its stance. Google’s course reversal, although welcomed by users, is only short term, and the search giant said it will change course once again with the release of the Chrome 70 browser. “In Chrome M69, we rolled out a change to hide special-case subdomains “www” and “m” in the Chrome omnibox,” Google Chromium product manager Emily Schecter wrote. “After receiving community feedback about these changes, we have decided to roll back these changes in M69 on Chrome for Desktop and Android. ” Critics have argued that by not displaying the special-case subdomains, it was harder for users to identify sites as legitimate, and the move could lead to more scams on the internet. Others go as far as questioning Google’s motives for not displaying the “www” and “m” portion of a web address, and these users speculated that the move may be to disguise Google’s AMP — or Accelerated Mobile Pages — subdomain to make it indistinguishable for the actual domain. “Please leave URLs as they are,” one user commented on Google’s feedback forum. “Not always example.com is equivalent to www.example.com, so leave the freedom to the user to see what they typed in the address bar.” Other users were more direct in their criticism of Google’s proposed changes for Chrome 70. “I remain firmly convinced that some solutions are worse than the problems they address, and that hiding bits of the URL is one of them,” another user commented. “As others have stated previously both here and in other discussions about this, it will not help users learn about URLs if browsers like [Chrome] simplify them to remove complexity at the expense of clarity. Feel free to dim the unimportant parts of the domain name, or make whatever visual tweaks you think will be helpful to emphasize the main component(s) that all users should be aware of, but do not hide anything.” Before reversing the changes it made, users were able to reveal the full web address — including the www or m subdomains — by double-clicking on the address bar in Chrome 69. Google plans to initiate public discussions over the proposed changes for Chrome 70, and according to Schecter, the company does not plan to force other browsers into standardizing in the way web URLs are displayed. With the launch of Chrome 70, Google plans on hiding the ‘www’ portion of a web address inside the search bar, but it will continue to display the ‘m’ subdomain. ” We are not going to elide ‘m’ in M70 because we found large sites that have a user-controlled ‘m’ subdomain,” she said. “There is more community consensus that sites should not allow the ‘www’ subdomain to be user controlled.” Google also made headlines in recent weeks with its intentions on killing off URLs altogether in a bid to make the internet safer. Source
×
×
  • Create New...