Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

417 comments

And all for what? (4, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180326)

And all this is being done for what? To give me 50 pixels? Whoop-dee-doo.

Re:And all for what? (2)

SolemnDwarf (863575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180362)

My screen is only 100 pixels tall, you insensitive clod!

Re:And all for what? (0)

battling (2128650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180800)

A really good idea to hide the URL bar... it saves the screen space, mainly on small netbook displays... I always tend to waste as little space as possible... And hehe... no more URL advertisments like this one http://urlmarquee.com/ [urlmarquee.com] But sadly, it's the end of these crazy url games like url hunter [probablyinteractive.com] or url buggy [urlmarquee.com] .

Re:And all for what? (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180936)

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:And all for what? (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180440)

It may be optional if it makes it to a stable build; in its current form it adds a menu option to the tabbar so it can be toggled at will.

Re:And all for what? (2)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181096)

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:And all for what? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180442)

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? (5, Informative)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180474)

If you need it, you can always hit F11.

Re:And all for what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180568)

If you need the URL bar, you can always mouseover the tab.

Re:And all for what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180756)

If you need the URL bar, you can always mouseover the tab.

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 one-page-per-thread view.

Re:And all for what? (2)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180848)

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:And all for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180950)

And I'm sure CTRL+L will still work to focus on the URL bar just as it does now. You do use a keyboard shortcut to access the location bar, right? After all, you seem to really be interested in doing things the fastest way possible.

I am curious why the URL can determine whether your site is working or not. I've had plenty of occasions where the URL has helped me figure out why a site I'm working on isn't working, but the determination of whether it is or isn't working doesn't depend on seeing the URL.

Re:And all for what? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181014)

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:And all for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180790)

I hardly even use the URL bar, I usually just open a new tab and type.

Re:And all for what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180808)

Those of us with decent sized screens were here first.

Re:And all for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180536)

The article specifically mentions that this is targeting mobile devices and that the extra space isn't a big deal on desktops.

Re:And all for what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180628)

30 (from TFA which you didn't read) * 1920 = 57600 pixels saved. I'll take it.

Re:And all for what? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180736)

Nah

The developers were jealous of the Gnome team after playing with Gnome-Shell.

Re:And all for what? (3, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180882)

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:And all for what? (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180892)

More likely to enhance ad targeting, all your usual direct to server queries goes through Google search now, so they get properly tracked.

Re:And all for what? (1)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180946)

No, it's so you can be like my wife and not go to sites by typing URLs directly into the URL box, but by visiting the Google homepage and type them in there.

I will miss the bar (5, Funny)

LunaticTippy (872397) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180330)

I am starting to dislike progress. I need a drink.

Re:I will miss the bar (1)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180682)

Starting you say?

Re:I will miss the bar (4, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180844)

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:I will miss the bar (2)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180938)

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:I will miss the bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36181002)

Oh my, what a fucked-up definition of "progress" you just blindly accepted from those who actually move backwards...
Dumbing-down is not progress, never was, and never will be.
Dumbing-down is what spineless losers do, who are so insecure in themselves, that they obey the screams of the loud retards.
Which unfortunately seems to be the case with most smart people, especially geeks, who all their life were brainwashed into thinking that the sports guy (who can't add up 2+2 and now works as a burger flipper) in class was cooler than them.
It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect [wikipedia.org] .

Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (1, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180334)

When will I be able to set Chrome so that it doesn't use tabs and opens new windows instead? Firefox has always been able to do this. Why is Chrome forcing me to use tabs when I already have a perfectly nice window manager?

Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180426)

Just so I'm clear - you have a browser that does what you want, but you're complaining because not every browser does everything you want? Or maybe your use of the word "forcing" is a clue - does Google have a gun to your head to ensure that you use Chrome? Is it Swordfish style, so you're also getting a bj from Halle Berry? Cause AWESOME.

And that's why Dr. Spork is sticking with Firefox (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180548)

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:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180598)

No, Firefox is the least bad of the browsers that has a feature that I can't live without. But it pains me to see Chrome all "serious" about UI customizability but then it refuses to customize tabs. I want to use Chrome, or at least try using it and see how it stacks up. But for now, I think a very strange design decision is keeping me from it. I'm not saying that Google has an obligation to do this. I'm saying that if Google wants an extra set of users - which it does - this would be a simple way of doing it. There's a lot more demand for that than ... hiding the URL bar! OK? So that's my previous post, interpreted for the feebleminded.

Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (0)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180662)

Actually, it wasn't Halle Berry that gave the BJ, it was some blonde girl.

Although, we did get to see Halle's rack; veddy nice!

Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180922)

Complaining? Well if Google wants me or Dr. Spork to change they need to fix it is all he is saying.

I have been using Chrome more and more since so many slashdotters and reviewers claim how much better it is and faster. But UI annoyances is what keeps me from adopting. I like all 3 major browsers under Windows but dislike what Chrome is doing to the UI. Otherwise I do feel it is slightly snappier and lighter than Firefox, so I switched back to Firefox this week

Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (5, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180660)

New Tab, New Window [google.com] might help.

Re:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (1)

Alternate Interior (725192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180732)

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:Yeah, but will I be able to kill tabs? (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180998)

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?

Widescreen (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180386)

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? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180580)

True, a 720p class monitor is a downgrade. But when you replace a 1280x1024 pixel monitor with a 1920x1080 pixel monitor, you gain vertical pixels, and you also gain the ability to show two pages side-by-side.

Re:What loss of pixels? (2)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180616)

even then, 1920*1200 monitors (16:10) have been replaced by 1920*1080 (16:9) ones

Re:What loss of pixels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180888)

even then, 1920*1200 monitors (16:10) have been replaced by 1920*1080 (16:9) ones

Note to self: Buy a 1920x1200 LCD monitor this week. My 19" CRTs, which ran 1600x1200 10 years ago, can remain as secondary monitors, but my 21" CRT, with no lag, full color gamut, and 2048x1536, still beats anything I can buy in the LCD space. (I'd have to go 27" or 30" to get comparable pixel counts in the LCD space, and while they look great, I'd look like a bobblehead moving my neck/eyes to see it all, or I'll have to put the LCD too far away for comfort.)

Re:What loss of pixels? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181018)

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:What loss of pixels? (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181126)

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:Widescreen (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180592)

1280x1024 is not 4:3 but it is a commonly supported video mode on 5:4 LCD panels, which were common before the "HD" television push which caused the 16:9 and 16:10 panels to flood the market.

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:Widescreen (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180646)

yea.. missed that

got used to thinking of non wide monitors as 4:3

Re:Widescreen (1)

whovian (107062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180630)

Good riddance. Applications' menu bars (not in Chrome) shouldn't need 33% of the monitor vertical space.

It is kind of funny...how yesterday's long monitors (just to see a single entire document page or print preview page) are today's widescreens. It also makes perfect sense to have side menus.

Re:Widescreen (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180690)

"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:Widescreen (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180904)

Yuppers, but we stood them short-side down and called them "portrait" displays: here [32by32.com] .

Re:Widescreen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180968)

Uh sure, "widescreen" is also going backwards.

I'm still using 10 year old LCD's because they're 1600x1200. I don't care about the aspect, it's the resolution I want. These days you can't get a cheap monitor with 1200+ vertical pixels.

I figured by now low-end monitors would be 1920x1440 at least and mid-range would be 2500x1900 or so. Instead we have shit low resolution "widescreen" monitors all over the place because for some reason watching a movie in the proper aspect ratio is more important than actually using the computer.

To cluttered. (5, Funny)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180410)

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.

Re:To cluttered. (5, Funny)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180484)

Steve, is that you?

Re:To cluttered. (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181026)

Steve, is that you?

No. He never would have misused "to" in the article title.

Re:To cluttered. (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180518)

You can probably do the brushed metal theme yourself, for the rest here you go. [mozilla.org] Without it, I find firefox unusable.

Re:To cluttered. (5, Insightful)

Hultis (1969080) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180584)

The link was broken. Thankfully I had a soon-to-be-antiquated URL bar so I could see what was wrong and change it.

Re:To cluttered. (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180674)

Sorry about that! Try this one [mozilla.org] , and if slashdot is killing URLs in posts now (why not, they were 403 for an hour this morning) it's pentadactyl you seek.

Belly up to the URL Bar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180414)

I use the data from the URL bar.
I need it for my job. It is part of the required sourcing for research.

Re:Belly up to the URL Bar (1)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180824)

So, uh, don't use Chrome?

If my clients are any indication few will notice (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180436)

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 every spyware infection and rootkit I have had to remove tends to come from clicking on the first thing that comes up on a search.

Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (4, Funny)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180516)

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:If my clients are any indication few will notic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180842)

Mod this up.

Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180718)

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:If my clients are any indication few will notic (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180846)

Yeah, I've noticed this behavior in various users (and even otherwise-knowledgeable colleagues!) too. Drives me insane, why would you ever do that?

      Because it corrects spelling errors.

Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180880)

The best ones (like my parents) are the ones who put "www.youtube.com" into the Google search bar on their browser that's about 2cm away from the address bar. And my mother is assistant manager of the IT dept at a major medical lab yet I can't get her to change...

Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180908)

Ow. My brain... ow.

Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (1)

Tikkun (992269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180768)

When your system doesn't map to the brain of the user that needs to use it, you change the system. Expecting the user to change for the system is futile.

Re:If my clients are any indication few will notic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36181138)

Google would prefer it this way, the longer they can keep you on their site, the greater the chance of increased ad revenue.

F*cking (0)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180444)

stupid.

chrome 14 to only work on google sites (0)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180460)

since google is sucking up all the world's information, there is no reason to leave google's servers

Keyboard shortcut? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180466)

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? (1)

Cogita (1119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180590)

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.

Thanks! That's a useful tidbit I didn't know about.

Re:Keyboard shortcut? (1)

weicco (645927) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180870)

You might want to try CTRL+d also. Much easier and faster than F6.

Re:Keyboard shortcut? (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181054)

F6? Who uses F6? Try ctrl+L. Stands for LINK.

Re:Keyboard shortcut? (4, Informative)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181036)

F6? Who uses F6? Try ctrl+L

Okay (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180472)

Okay, Chrome 13 has a flag to hide the URL bar. They've clearly spent hours of work enabling this behavior. While this story is less interesting because the feature is trivial and not even active by default, it is still very interesting because it's about a Google product. So thank you for the info.

Forward, Back, Refresh. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180476)

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 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 just removing the feature

location.replace(some_other_url) (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180734)

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) (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180490)

Direct understandable interfaces changed to obfuscated, hidden, over-engineered nonsense. Is Google now taking its cues from the MIcrosoft Office interface design team?

Re:Industry standard interface design... (i.e. dum (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180694)

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.

Slashdot going down the drain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180496)

Hopefully Chrome 13 will check for dupes!

Oh, wait, this isn't a dupe..

Well, maybe Chrome 13 will have an option to make the spell-checker mandatory - that will sure help the lazy editors!

Oh, wait, the spelling is fine. Hmm.

Well, maybe Chrome 13 will have a way to go the original source, not some 3rd-level blogging of a blog post!

Oh, wait, it is the original...

Well, maybe Chrome 13 will have a 'nerd' or 'stuff that matters' filter! That might stop Taco from posting these off topic, link grabbing, troll stories!

Oh, wait, this is a tech story...

Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberating (4, Interesting)

m_chan (95943) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180514)

There are similar add-ons for Chrome, but Vimperator [vimperator.org] on Firefox is fabulous for my needs. Everything else looks a cluttered, redundant mess. I am despise the URL bar.

Re:Vimperator: surprisingly effective and liberati (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180952)

Alternatively there is Pentadactyl [sourceforge.net] a fork of that project. I move over as they were faster to provide Firefox 4 support.

Phishing trip (4, Insightful)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180534)

This is a guaranteed fraud magnet.

Re:Phishing trip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180958)

THIS a thousand times this....

Re:Phishing trip (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181074)

That was my first thought as well.

Re:Phishing trip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36181136)

Because of course the "average" user (i.e. those that don't read slashdot) is constantly checking the URL to make sure it is correct and secure, and they also know that something looking like http://paypa1.com.au/ is insecure.

The main reason (1)

boristdog (133725) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180542)

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) people, not picture-based people. That's the main problem I have with the OS-X interface, icons with no words under them, dammit!

Yes, more vertical screen space please (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180564)

All security issues aside:

In TFA also other layout options are illustrated. Tabs in the sidebar, finally. With the widespread use of wide screen monitors, esp. for notebooks, I just _hate_ how vertical screen space is wasted by bloated interfaces like the MS ribbon. At least give us an option to move them to the side and align them vertically.

So thank you Google UI engineers, good move

Re:Yes, more vertical screen space please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180926)

You can enable side tabs right now in about:flags. It's been that way for a while.

Really, Really, Really Bad Idea (3, Insightful)

grahamtriggs (572707) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180634)

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.

Faster JS or not... (1)

dnebin (594347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180680)

The day they drop the address bar is the same day I stop using Chrome.

Foxes and dogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36180744)

Although Chrome never hit my taste to begin with, I would still prefer to know the specific page I'm on without having to guess.

I can only imagine how this "feature" will be put to use by hackers and such. Doppelganger-facebook? Yikes. Improbable, yeah, but you already know that people are stupid enough to fall for it.

It's called the Location Bar (2)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180822)

... as in window.location.href. MS just had to be different, so they (and only they) call it the Address Bar. But please, not a third name.

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.

Merge Gnome and KDE (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36180978)

Merge Gnome and KDE!

Sorry, wrong story (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181022)

Sorry, wrong story.

Better be an option... (1)

TavisJohn (961472) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181000)

I hope that there will be a setting to make the address bar always visible.

It is a security risk to hide the address bar. A hacked website could re-direct you and you would not have a clue!

With it hidden most people will have no real idea what website that they are on.
Yea you can manually check, but who is going to do that on a regular basis?

Besides that next to the address area are the icons for the add-ons I use all the time. Even with the address bar gone, I will not gain any screen real estate.

No Url? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36181016)

has no one ever heard of F11 you hit that button and bam you got full screen with no url bar anyway so why the update to do it automatically

bad for screenshots (1)

hey (83763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181062)

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.

So what's the flag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36181106)

"The feature has to be enabled via a flag in a recent Canary or nightly build version of Chrome 13. To activate teh hidden URL bar, users will also have to right-click a tab and select “Hide the toolbar”Besides killing the URL bar, the new feature also moves the tools menu, hides any extension and introduces new back/forward buttons."

That's great and all, but the article completely leaves out what the required flag is to enable the feature....

What a terrible idea (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181120)

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.

It's all good (1)

mgmartin (580921) | more than 3 years ago | (#36181122)

I still prefer the separate process per tab Chrome provides over the alternatives. And, as long as I can still enable the location bar if I want to, it's all good.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...