Humans can't read URLs. How can we fix it? - HTTP 203 on HackerTube: recommended by 3 Hacker News commenters across 2 separate months, 2020–2023.
commentary · dated
Jake Archibald argues that URLs are nearly impossible for humans to interpret, especially for security. He walks through what browsers do about it, including highlighting the registrable domain, and floats a possible better design.
Referenced in debates over Chrome hiding URLs as a compelling case for why full URLs are hard even for experts.
“I think they make a compelling argument for hiding most of the url in part to prevent phishing”
7 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
Jake Archibald (a Googler) presents some decent points on this on the HTTP 203 podcast: ▶ this video I still don't agree with the removal of URLs, but I do still recommend watching the entire video if you want to get more perspective on the issue (beyond just the conspiracy theories about AMP and control).
in “Google resumes its attack on the URL bar, hides full addresses on Chrome 86” · View on HN
A couple of Google Chrome devs talk about the issues surrounding the readability of urls and their security implications and possible solutions in an episode of their podcast[0]. I think they make a compelling argument for hiding most of the url in part to prevent phishing however I do think they should allow this behaviour to be toggled via a flag. [0] ▶ this video
in “Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar” · View on HN
Reading URLs is actually really hard - even for experts. This video covers the problems well: ▶ this video This is bad for web security, since the registerable domain is the part you have to trust, but it's surprisingly difficult to figure out that part. However I feel a bit uneasy about this since URLs are important and tell you where you are on a website. I prefer Firefox's approach which emphasises the registerable domain in the URL bar and fades out the rest of it, making it easier to spot the important bit. However it's still quite subtle - it could do with being a clearer distinction.
in “Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar” · View on HN
Yes. Years. I think a URL bar that sticks to the security relevent parts is a good idea. It's hard for even experienced users to figure that stuff out. I tried to explain it here ▶ this video
in “Chrome abandons 'simplified domain experiment' in omnibar” · View on HN
It is, there’s a long special list for domains that host arbitrary subdomains, GitHub pages is one of them. It’s explained well in ▶ this video
in “Google adds experimental setting to hide full URLs in Chrome 85 address bar” · View on HN
In this video, a Googler here proposes adding the "ETLD+1" part of the domain name as a "chip" where the extended-validation certificate name used to be. So this link: [link] Would look like this in the browser: jakearchibald.github.io | [link] The proposal appears at 16:45 ▶ this video
in “Humans can't read URLs. How can we fix it?” · View on HN
Why did Google select someone unknown to announce this? It's also the second time I've noticed Google had someone the UK introduce an unpopular proposal to Chrome. The other one was removing the URL from the address bar (accusing the author of You Don't Know JS of being "Trump-like" for how he disagreed with him in the process). ▶ this video [link] [link] Is there a special ops team? Of the FAAMGs my favorite is Google, but this makes me reconsider my position.
in “Google’s nightmare “Web Integrity API” wants a DRM gatekeeper for the web” · View on HN