Google Is Serious, Chrome 13 Hides URL Bar 417
An anonymous reader writes "A few months ago, we heard about Google playing with the idea of killing the URL bar in its Chrome browser. Chrome 13 provides a first view how this feature will work. There is a new flag and a context menu option that hides the traditional URL bar and moves a shortened version into each tab."
And all for what? (Score:5, Interesting)
And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.
Re: (Score:2)
My screen is only 100 pixels tall, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
My screen is only 100 pixels tall, you insensitive clod!
It's not about the size. It's about how you use it. .....
Nahhh! It's about the size.
(Posted from a 24" 1920x1080 monitor)
Re:And all for what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's a bad idea. I happen to like having my URL bar visible, so I can see where I am, make sure I'm not at some phishing site, so I can quickly type in a new address, so I can can copy&paste my current URL into an email and send to someone, etc.
As an option for netbooks, that's fine, but that's nothing new either. Firefox has always had the option of disabling the "navigation toolbar" if you wanted more screen space. But netbooks are a tiny, tiny minority anyway, so settings optimal for them shouldn't be forced on everyone else by default. Netbooks seem to be dying out anyway, and they seem to have just been a short-lived fad that got supplanted by the iPad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And I'm excited to not have to look at it when I don't need to. It seems we are at an impasse.
And that's why it's configurable.
Re: (Score:3)
And that's why it's configurable.
And why Firefox 4 fails utterly. They literally did remove the 'status bar'. Not an ability to hide it, it's gone.
At least one case where Google isn't forcing the change down on people...what a concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Another compromise would be how my Android devices handle the URL bar: when you scroll to the top of the web page, the URL bar is visible. As soon as you begin to scroll down the page, the URL bar disappears. You could even have a timeout on the URL bar so that it is visible for
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's a bad idea for you, but not necessarily for everyone else too. Just like you don't want Google to force their UI choices on you, don't try forcing your UI choices on others!
Netbooks may not be a majority, but their numbers are quite numerous still. At my university alone, I see hundreds of them, and their users could benefit from as much screen estate as they can get, due to the tiny screen. It's also an option for tablets. But for laptops and desktops, please, just have it as a flag or an option,
Re:And all for what? (Score:5, Informative)
They're not taking it away, they're adding the option to display how you want.
Doesn't sound like they're "adding an option" from the article. And I don't know about Chrome, but most other browsers have had the ability to disable the URL bar for probably 15 years now. It's been in Firefox (and Netscape before that) for as long as I can remember.
So, if your iPad ran a full version of Chrome with extensions, would you like that ability to hide a URL bar then? How about a phone?
Again, I don't know about Chrome, but other browsers have had this ability since the browser was invented. If people are too stupid to go to View->Toolbars->Navigation Toolbar and uncheck it, that's their problem.
Every time I use a brand-new installation of Firefox, I always have to disable the "Bookmarks Toolbar" which is enabled by default, because I don't find it useful, and I think it's a waste of space (I go to "Bookmarks" from the main menu when I need them). So what do I do? Scream and cry that this toolbar needs to be removed? Nope, I just go to View->Toolbars->Bookmark Toolbar and I uncheck it. Problem solved. Now, I could understand complaints if the only way to remove it was to hack the source code, or to go to "about:config" and search through a couple thousand lines there, but it's not, it's an extremely easy menu setting.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it's not on by default. The ability to even show the option is hidden away in about:flags. Once you allow that option to be shown, you still have to turn it on yourself. It's a very de
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I hope to everything that's holy and unholy that this will remain as a flag or a config setting, not some forced idiocy like hiding the "http://". The whole of Chrome is too well done to have them ruin it with a nonsensical move like this...
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it breaks copypaste: when I hit CTRL+C, I expect to see EXACTLY the same thing when hitting CTRL+V, but Chrome modifies the clipboard before posting. I don't like that.
Also, it may be ideal for you, but it doesn't cut it for me, I liked seeing the protocol prefix. They could at least insert a flag to re-enable it, even if it's off by default.
Re: (Score:2)
And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.
That's 8% of the height of my Dell netbook's screen, which a web application could use to show more information with less scrolling.
Re:And all for what? (Score:5, Informative)
If you need it, you can always hit F11.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not good enough. When I'm developing a site, I need the URL so I can figure out whether things are working or not. And even when browsing for fun, I want the URL bar so I can modify it.
On most finance sites, it's faster for me to simply change the "XYZ" in the "&symbol=XYZ" part of the URL than it is to enter it into some search box. On Slashdot, I can just paste &no_d2=1 into the end of a URL. On Fark, I just paste &cpp=1 to get
Re: (Score:3)
Safari on the iPhone does it well. The URL bar is scrolled along with the page data. If you need it, just scroll back up, or tap the status bar at the top of the screen to quickly scroll to the top. It's there when you need it, but goes away gracefully when you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you use Ctrl-L, which requires you to use your right hand, when Alt-D is easily typed left-handed? My right hand is often on the mouse, and even if I'm moving it to the keyboard, Alt-D is still quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
I can hit Ctrl-L with my left hand. I've got a Ctrl key on the right side of the keyboard as well the left
That requires moving your left hand off its natural position. So does F6. Alt-D doesn't.
Ctrl-D is easier in this case because I can use my thumb and any finger from a more natural position without bending it under my finders or changing the angle.
You're supposed to type with your fingers arched and your palms a good inch or so above the keyboard. I find there's plenty of room to tuck my left thumb underneath to hit the Alt key. My hand pivots a little to accommodate the reach, but the fingertips don't have to actually leave the keys they're resting on. And the gap between the space and the Alt key makes it easy to tell when the thumb has reached the key
Also... do
Re:And all for what? (Score:4, Insightful)
And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.
From Google's standpoint, lack of an address bar can steer more people back to Google for searches.
From a user's point of view... Well, I use the address bar... But about 80% of my users do not. Even if I give them a web address, they'll go to Google/Yahoo/Bing/whatever and type it in there. So it wouldn't be much of a change for them.
Re: (Score:3)
From a user's point of view... Well, I use the address bar... But about 80% of my users do not. Even if I give them a web address, they'll go to Google/Yahoo/Bing/whatever and type it in there. So it wouldn't be much of a change for them.
I hear you. Trying to remotely 'troubleshoot' for my parents, it's often a struggle to get them to type the website into "the white box at the top of the screen, by the File/Edit/View thingys". About half the time they wind up typing whatever I tell them into the Google search bar, then we get to spend some quality time with them describing their search results and me trying to figure out which one is the one they want...to my dad, Google is 'the internet'.
They are getting better at it...but I usually sti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely to enhance ad targeting, all your usual direct to server queries goes through Google search now, so they get properly tracked.
Yeah yeah we know, now then, was that Facebook or Microsoft who paid your PR firm to say that?
Re: (Score:2)
Making this change does little for usability, and does a lot to promote using the "Search" box at the top of the browser -- note that the new "Compact" view still includes a "Search" field to the left of the tabs. When a user wants to enter a URL, where are they going to look? Riiiiight... for a text box. If the only visible textbox is actually the "search" field... well... you do the math.
The new "compact" URL bar behaves like the current "Find" text entry box - it drops down out of the tab bar. But th
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, even wondered how Chrome does suggestions on the address bar? It sends everything you type to Google's Prediction Service [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I will miss the bar (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I will miss the bar (Score:4, Insightful)
What bothered me is Chrome's removal of the bookmars bar. Now it is hidden under the settings menu. I should not have to do this each time I want to go to a bookmark. Worse, they removed the Google search engine bar at the top of the screen. Now I have to hit delete on an url and type whatever I want or click new tab and then type it. Under IE 9 and Firefox I just type in the search bar.
Seriously Google, you are not saving space by removing these.
"I am starting to dislike progress. I need a drink."
I hear you. I had the unfortunate experience with using Fedora 15 with Gnome-shell last night. I just wiped the virtual partition and am installing Fedora 14 with Gnome 2.x for my unix web development. Sure I only have Postgresql 8.x and not 9.0.3 but I keep my sanity in the process.
All I have to say is thank god for competition with 2 other good browsers. IE 9 actually doesn't suck! It is stunning and fast and in the same league as Firefox 4 and Chrome 10. Competition is a beautiful thing. Issue I have is that Firefox 4 does not accelerate video on Linux so if you have Ubuntu or Fedora you are stuck with Chrome if you want a semi good browsing experience which is annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
What bothered me is Chrome's removal of the bookmars bar. Now it is hidden under the settings menu. I should not have to do this each time I want to go to a bookmark.
WTF? Just click on "Always Show Bookmarks Bar". You don't have to do anything else. Ever. Your bookmarks bar will be there permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they should consider adding some kind of button you could click that would temporarily open the bookmarks bar and let you single click on a bookmark and then it would immediately open that page and t
Re: (Score:3)
But I guess I am expecting too much for people to RTFM.
And no, I haven't memorized hundreds of keyboard shortcuts. Just the ones that I found interesting/useful. (probably 5 or 6)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be here all week, don't forget to tip your waitress!
Re: (Score:2)
I am starting to dislike progress
If only there were a button for that!...
Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent point. I find tabs are terribly useful on one screen but the utility of multiple windows rapidly overtakes the utility of multiple tabs by the time you have more than 1 monitor. Let the window manager do its job. Pointing out deficiencies is the easiest way to get it fixed in the proper layer.
Re: (Score:2)
Tabs came about because nobody would fix the "proper layer". You understand it was over TEN YEARS before the first tabbed browsers started becoming popular, right?
And that's why Dr. Spork is sticking with Firefox (Score:2)
you have a browser that does what you want, but you're complaining because not every browser does everything you want?
As for PCs, I took Dr. Spork's comment more in the sense of "And that's why I'm sticking with Firefox."
does Google have a gun to your head to ensure that you use Chrome?
Chrome OS uses Chrome as its shell, and I haven't seen any evidence that a Chrome OS device will let the user replace Chrome with another browser. Furthermore, the article hints that Android Browser will eventually merge with Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Widescreen (Score:3)
Kind of a nice way to offset the loss of vertical pixels as monitors move from 4:3(1280*1024) to 16:10(1280*800) to 16:9(1366*768)..
What loss of pixels? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
even then, 1920*1200 monitors (16:10) have been replaced by 1920*1080 (16:9) ones
Re: (Score:2)
Where?
I've never had any 1920x1200 monitors. My previous ones were all lower resolutions. Now I've upgraded to dual 1920x1080 24" monitors since they're so cheap. Sure, they're wider than all my previous ones, but I haven't lost any vertical pixels.
If those extra 180 pixels are so important to you, you can still buy 1920x1200 monitors for about $300.
If anyone has traded out a perfectly-good 1920x1200 monitor for a 1920x1080 monitor, that was their own dumb choice and they have no cause to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant in the market.
It is difficult to find *any* monitors with a resolution higher than 1920*1080 (with the exception of 2 models, 1 by Dell another by Apple)
Infact the highest resolution Dell lists on their website is 1920*1080, with the exception of a 30inch 2560*1600 monitor (http://accessories.ap.dell.com/sna/sna.aspx?c=in&cs=indhs1&l=en&s=dhs&~topic=ultrasharp_monitor)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. I just looked on Newegg yesterday and found a bunch of models in 1920x1200, and a bunch in even higher resolutions.
Here's about 30 models:
link [newegg.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1280x960 is a commonly supported video mode on 4:3 CRT's. If you are using 1280x1024 on a 4:3 display then those pixels arent square.
Re: (Score:2)
yea.. missed that
got used to thinking of non wide monitors as 4:3
Re: (Score:2)
"long" monitors meaning?
I thought the ratios moved from 4:3 or 5:4 ->16:10 -> 16:9
were there monitors with 9:16 like ratios earlier?
Re: (Score:2)
Yuppers, but we stood them short-side down and called them "portrait" displays: here [32by32.com].
To cluttered. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:To cluttered. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Steve, is that you?
No. He never would have misused "to" in the article title.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To cluttered. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
i'm sorry (Score:2)
brushed aluminum skin is not an option
however, you can get chrome plating
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for a sleek UI with no buttons, sliders, toggles, or anything else. I just want a brushed aluminum skin on everything, with no controls at all.
Just close your macbook and you're done!
If my clients are any indication few will notice (Score:2)
Half of my clients seem to think typing something in google is how to get around on the internet. I still have to regularly explain bookmarks, favorites, etc and when troubleshooting half of the time they cant actually tell me the URL they are having trouble reaching or getting to work in their browser because all they do is type the name of the place in google, this change will simply help facilitate that ignorance. If it was infallible I wouldn't have a problem with it but search results vary and nearly
Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (Score:5, Funny)
Now you get the point. Google Search is the official bookmark system for Chrome and nobody needs to know the URL because you can always find the best information by punching keywords into your bookmark system.
Re: (Score:2)
I would completely agree if it actually were the "best information", unfortunately with google and most other search engines it doesn't work that way. All to often the results are more the result of rank manipulation than by actual quality of information. Sometimes I think the biggest advancement in search engines would be for one to simply add a checkbox that allows the user to never see search results from certain sites again...if I could banish things like fixya, answers.yahoo.com and stuff like that i
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've noticed this behavior in various users (and even otherwise-knowledgeable colleagues!) too. Drives me insane, why would you ever do that? If you know you want to go to youtube, typing youtube.com in your address bar is easier than going to Google, then searching for "youtube", then clicking. Or better still, put a damn bookmark in place.
</rant>
Re: (Score:2)
Because it corrects spelling errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So. Bing/Google/Yahoo are the new AOL. Just great... sigh.
Keyboard shortcut? (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder if I'll still be able to use the F6 shortcut to place the cursor in the address bar? Having to use the mouse to type in a web address would be enough to make me stop using chrome.
Re:Keyboard shortcut? (Score:5, Informative)
F6? Who uses F6? Try ctrl+L
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to try CTRL+d also. Much easier and faster than F6.
Re: (Score:2)
F6? Who uses F6? Try ctrl+L. Stands for LINK.
Okay (Score:2)
Forward, Back, Refresh. (Score:2)
I kinda see why they are doing this. They are trying to make web browsers more like using an application vs. browsing. And in Web Applications Coding it so it can handle Forward, Back and Refresh, and links to the location bar adds complexity of your code. However it seems they are doing this at the expense of non-Web Applications. Eg. I went to Slashdot I saw this article. I clicked on the link read the content and hit the back button then hit comments.
I would prefer a way for HTML to tell the browser t
location.replace(some_other_url) (Score:2)
I would prefer a way for HTML to tell the browser that I am an application where I forbid the back and forward buttons to work on my tab (or have it go back to the external site that found it)
Then add an event listener for clicks on your links that does {location.replace(some_other_url); return false}.
Industry standard interface design... (i.e. dumb) (Score:2)
Direct understandable interfaces changed to obfuscated, hidden, over-engineered nonsense. Is Google now taking its cues from the MIcrosoft Office interface design team?
Re: (Score:2)
Direct understandable interfaces changed to obfuscated, hidden, over-engineered nonsense. Is Google now taking its cues from the MIcrosoft Office interface design team?
Sadly, everyone seems to be trying to ape Windows these days. Last night I told my Ubuntu laptop to shut down and Gnome gave me some stupid Windows-style 'Program Unknown is not responding' dialog box. Like I give a crap, kill -15 and shut down.
Ugh. If I wanted to run Windows I'd be running Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberating (Score:5, Interesting)
Phishing trip (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a guaranteed fraud magnet.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please... the fucking idiots that fall for that shit aren't checking the address bar to begin with.
The main reason (Score:2)
The main reason I DON'T use Chrome is because I LIKE having my 12+ most-used sites in a drop-down URL bar, like every other major browser has. I don't want to click on pictures.
Having to open a new tab, then having to figure out which of the 8 (only 8) pictures corresponds with the web site I am trying to get, then clicking it, is WAY more complicated. And sites that use similar color schemes are hard to tell apart at first glance in the little picture.
Google, some of us are text-based (CLI forever) peopl
Re: (Score:2)
You call yourself a text-based/CLI person, yet you're complaining there's no clickable dropdown menu for chrome? Control-T for new tab (focus goes to address bar) or Control-L to put focus in the address bar and start typing the website that you want. Since you're a text person, you know. Pretty sure websites are autocomplete for commonly used ones and a dropdown listing appears with others that you can scroll down to and select with the arrow keys. I would hope that Control-L still shows the address bar wh
Really, Really, Really Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the most useful 'innovations' in browsers over the years - aside from tabs - has been the permanent search box, so that we can fire off searches really easily.
Chrome combined this into the URL box as - reasonably - we don't need two separate boxes cluttering up the display.
But now to hide the combi-box takes away the useful feature that we had - the ever-present search box.
Plus, lets not forget that this is a phishers wet dream - you mean we can't see the url of the page we are looking at, just how it looks, and the title in tab? Hide the url, and it becomes a lot more difficult to be sure that the page you are submitting details to is the page that you intended.
Although I'm currently a Chrome user, I will switch away if this change gets forced on me.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about the URL bar, which sadly, doubles as a search box. I, for the record, HATE this feature so much, that I use firefox, and whenever I have a new install, seek out the about:config option that lets me disable it.
I have never, in 15 years of being on the web, have typed into that bar and WANTED it to do a search. I have a permanent search box... NEXT TO the URL bar. That I love.
Why?
Simple, sometimes I setup web apps, or even develop them. When i type a url in, I want it to go there. if it can't, I
It's called the Location Bar (Score:3)
As for the change, I don't care as long as Control-L (Windows) or Command-L (Mac) * unhides it and selects all of the current page's URL, so that typing replaces it. That's the way power users type a new URL using only the keyboard anyway.
* That's L, as in "Location Bar". Works in MSIE too, but without the current page's URL.
Re: (Score:2)
Control-L (Windows) ... Works in MSIE too, but without the current page's URL
Try Alt-D.
bad for screenshots (Score:2)
Now if you see a screenshot of a browser viewing a website you also see the URL (in the location bar).
In Chrome you won't. This is bad. The URL is best thing about the internet.
What a terrible idea (Score:2)
As the article itself points out, this makes it harder to see the URL of a site you visit. Anything that makes it harder for users to carry out the most basic security precautions is a Very Bad Thing. Seriously. The phishers must be positively drooling over this new user interface.
Interface minimalism is all well and good, but there are some things that need to be shown constantly. The URL bar is one of them.
More search results, more revenue (Score:2)
If they hide the URL bar, most people (as many already do) will search Google for a site they already know the URL of. A lot of the users of our site type our URL into Google's search and then click the top link. Google doing this, just makes them serve up more search results ending up in more revenue for Google.
Browsing (Score:2)
The idea is appealing, but in this day of high resolution screens it's largely irrelevant. Years ago, when I was browsing in 640x480 and then 800x600 trying to fit as much content on the screen as I could was important. Back then I browsed with the window maximized. Nowadays my browsers are windowed. Sites are so much longer than the vertical height of the window that an extra 40-50 pixels is irrelevant. The vertical orientation of tablets also makes this pointless.
The one environment where this helps is on
Fabulous (Score:2)
URL add-ons. (Score:3)
And then we'll see add-ons for chrome that display the URL.
Full circle!
Is Google becoming AOL? (Score:2)
If memory serves me right, didn't the early versions of AOL work a similar way as the Chrome browser? A user types in a keyword into the AOL broswer and AOL matched the keyword with a URL, website pops up. A user types a keyword in Chrome and Chrome searches your history or uses Google's search engine to match the keyword with a URL, website pops up. I know you can change the search engines in Chrome but the end result is the same; the user doesn't have to know how the Internet works to use the Internet.
Summary is wrong (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a Chrome engineer. This summary is wrong. The Compact Nav mode is an experiment we're testing. There are no plans right now to turn it on by default for Chrome 13 or any other Chrome release, and in fact there are currently far too many issues with it for us to fix in the M13 timeframe even if we wanted to turn it on by default.
Sorry, wrong story (Score:2)
Sorry, wrong story.
Re: (Score:2)