Google Will Continue Hiding "WWW" but Not "M" in Chrome 70

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
Arguments for maintaining the “www” and “m” subdomains in Chrome’s omnibox have fallen on deaf ears, at least partially: a Chromium project member has advised that “www” will remain hidden by default in the next version of Chrome. “M,” however, will not be elided (for at least a few releases) due to "large sites that have a user-controlled ‘m’ subdomain." While Google is asking for feedback, it is becoming pretty clear the conversation is one sided.

We plan to initiate a public standardization discussion with the appropriate standards bodies to explicitly reserve “www” or m” as special case subdomains under-the-hood. We do not plan to standardize how browsers should treat these special cases in their UI. We plan to revisit the 'm' subdomain at a later date, after having an opportunity to discuss further with the community. Please leave feedback, or let us know about sites that have user-controlled subdomains at “www” or “m” in this bug.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
Maybe I missed it, but other than just making the URL's shorter why did they take away the www. ? Like, what the fuck difference does it make? Why not remove the .com's and .org's and .net's too?
 

mufcfan

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
266
But it's Chrome. Whatever it does is the standard and others get called out on why they have not yet adopted it. /s
Why fix something that ain't broken?
 

The Mad Atheist

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2018
Messages
1,169
Maybe I missed it, but other than just making the URL's shorter why did they take away the www. ? Like, what the fuck difference does it make? Why not remove the .com's and .org's and .net's too?
Because we have .net, .gov, .xxx, ect ect ect
 

ZeqOBpf6

Gawd
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
625
Maybe I missed it, but other than just making the URL's shorter why did they take away the www. ? Like, what the fuck difference does it make? Why not remove the .com's and .org's and .net's too?
Because ostensibly all websites have www and the ones that don't still work. There are some niche cases that people here have mentioned but IMO they're so rare, it says more about bad design than bad Chrome.


I like it. It just makes things easier to read. Anything on written on all websites shouldn't really be written anyways. Does anyone here type http:// anymore? Again, they're not removing it, they're hiding it. If you need to go to www3 or something there's still a way.

It seems good to me. They could even drop http:// for all I care. Just show S for secure if it's https.
s.hardforum.com sure looks a lot cleaner than
https://www.hardforum.com
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,538
Because ostensibly all websites have www and the ones that don't still work. There are some niche cases that people here have mentioned but IMO they're so rare, it says more about bad design than bad Chrome.


I like it. It just makes things easier to read. Anything on written on all websites shouldn't really be written anyways. Does anyone here type http:// anymore? Again, they're not removing it, they're hiding it. If you need to go to www3 or something there's still a way.

It seems good to me. They could even drop http:// for all I care. Just show S for secure if it's https.
s.hardforum.com sure looks a lot cleaner than
https://www.hardforum.com
But if someone tried to navigate to s.hardforum.com it wouldn't work, because that's not a registered domain name, and hardforum.com doesn't serve anything at s.hardforum.com. And don't think people won't try typing that in...
 

clockdogg

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
1,063
How's Firefox on Android? Keep meaning to give it a try.
Just as good or better than Chrome - Knurrus' complaint about about:config notwithstanding. However...it's still on infantile mobile devices - browsing in that 360px wide window is for emergency use only. :p
 

blandead

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
280
How's Firefox on Android? Keep meaning to give it a try.
It's good mostly, sometimes you come across a site not optimized for mobile and made specifically around chrome

If you use it on desktop sync is useful. I don't like chrome's UI on mobile

But lately I don't like Firefox UI on desktop
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,690
For me Firefox on Android just sucks as just about any config has be done via about:config, like turning on/off javascript. Last time I checked the addons available are lacking compared to Firefox on Windows for javascript management and addblockers. I also dislike their version of tabbing, etc.

So on Android I use Chrome, but on Windows Firefox is my main browser.

But then again Chrome on Android is now so f*cking white all over along with bad contrast. Perhaps Google should let some UX people instead of some graphics designer to make decisions.
Firefox on Android has far more addons than Chrome on Android, Chrome on Android doesn't support addons at all. The earlier releases of FF on Android did perform badly, the latest releases based on FF Quantum run far better. I've switched to FF on Android since the release of Quantum and I'm finding it great.

At least it has an adblocker that actually works, unlike Chrome on Android.
 

naib

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2013
Messages
1,289
The www prefix hasn't been needed for like 10years and iirc whoever manages the standards removed the need for it

Why is these backlash for something not alot of sites use ...
 

Nolan7689

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
1,665
It seems good to me. They could even drop http:// for all I care. Just show S for secure if it's https.
s.hardforum.com sure looks a lot cleaner than
https://www.hardforum.com
Or, the simple way Safari on iPhone shows a secure web address, a lock icon next to the shortened address.
2A564FDA-A5C3-489C-ACBB-85E1ABF35111.jpeg
BCC345E3-80C1-45CC-964B-CC2A2053679C.jpeg
F3BFB929-298B-4DC1-8AA3-E0805710C701.jpeg


Seems a fairly suitable way to handle it really...do we need to see that jumble of letters outside of bringing focus to the bar to make sure it’s the correct jumble?
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,137
Maybe I missed it, but other than just making the URL's shorter why did they take away the www. ? Like, what the fuck difference does it make? Why not remove the .com's and .org's and .net's too?
because this day and age it doesn't matter if WWW is there, also less and less advertisements/news/etc that use url's are no longer using WWW in their links. i honestly can't remember the last time i ever typed www before a link unless a site specifically required something other than www at the start of the url.

i'm completely fine with them officially removing it.
 

toast0

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
987
Or, the simple way Safari on iPhone shows a secure web address, a lock icon next to the shortened address. View attachment 104235 View attachment 104236 View attachment 104237

Seems a fairly suitable way to handle it really...do we need to see that jumble of letters outside of bringing focus to the bar to make sure it’s the correct jumble?
So, what Safari does is kind of indicate the domain of the site you're visiting. What chrome used to do is show the current URL. What it does now is show something that may or may not be the current URL, because sometimes they remove things.

I regularly have people sene me screenshots complaining about stuff, and they invariably forget to include the url. I hate what Safari does, but at least it's obviously not the url; with chrome, I'm going to have to guess. Firefox does this much better -- they highlight the domain, but otherwise show the whole url.

For those people who don't like www in the urls, there is a good justification for having something there -- it's common to use a cname to delegate hosting your website to someone else, but you can't do that with the domain itself, you would either need to delegate dns for the whole domain, or get a static A record and update from time to time. If you really don't like www, you could have some other name like web or gopher or whatever, but that is really going to confuse people.
 

Betaboy1983

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,264
It wasn't that long ago, but... log on to:

Double You Double You Double You, Dot Pea Bee Es, Dot, Oh Are Gee.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Firefox on Android has far more addons than Chrome on Android, Chrome on Android doesn't support addons at all. The earlier releases of FF on Android did perform badly, the latest releases based on FF Quantum run far better. I've switched to FF on Android since the release of Quantum and I'm finding it great.

At least it has an adblocker that actually works, unlike Chrome on Android.
I use Firefox for most Android browsing. Chrome for Google sites since they cripple the user experience for non-Chrome browsers (annoying).

Reason that made me switch is that Chrome had a nasty JavaScript engine bug for a very long time that causes it to lag really bad on text input. I knew it wasn't my phone as I observed it on 4 completely different devices. Some sites would be ok (HardOCP), others would choke (Reddit). Firefox has never had the issue. The ones that choked were unusable.
 

niconx

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
2,946
How's Firefox on Android? Keep meaning to give it a try.
Firefox Focus (the security focused Firefox) works great for me, fast and snappy on my Moto e4+. Wish it had a bookmark system though.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
30,638
Google seems hell bent on wrecking everything lately.

Bad change after bad change.

- AMP
- White everything in Android apps
- Worse less readable UI updates to Gmail and Chrome
- Removing www prefixes

It seems like everything they are doing lately is just making things worse.
 

NeoNemesis

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
2,458
But it's Chrome. Whatever it does is the standard and others get called out on why they have not yet adopted it. /s
Why fix something that ain't broken?
Chrome or not, if they do this, I will be switching to Firefox.

Google seems dead set on embracing change for the sake of change.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,137
Chrome or not, if they do this, I will be switching to Firefox.

Google seems dead set on embracing change for the sake of change.
sometimes yes but a lot of times it's just to simplify over complicated shit.. you know how much time i had to waste explaining to my parents that you don't need to type www anymore or why some sites have https instead of http? way more time than i should of.. it's time to start teaching people that standard hasn't been needed in damn near 10 years. it's not like they're removing the ability to type WWW or anything in that area, they're just removing the needless clutter of having www there when it's no longer necessary.

i agree with zara though i friggin hate googles UI changes but i guess it keeps idiots from pressing the wrong things these days since no one can find half the shit that was accessible with 1 click previously. the bad UI changes aren't just google though, microsofts ui changes over the years for most of their software is horrendous and has been for years..
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
2,993
I wonder if this is something that gets baked in Chromium or is it only a Chrome feature. Firefox for Android sucks but instead of Chrome I use Kiwi Browser these days which is Chromium based but has built-in adblocker and few other very handy features. (like makes mobile Facebook website usable, prevents Messenger nagscreens and such)
I am asking if the www will be forced to dissappear on future Chromium-based custom browsers like Kiwi too.
 

MacLeod

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
7,837
Count me in with the "why is this even an issue" crowd. I haven't typed "www" in an address bar since around 2001. I have a feeling most people haven't. Why would anybody miss something nobody uses?
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
Anyone supporting this move is an idiot.

If you need to be told what and how to do things, then you should never have a say in what and how things should be done.

For those who still like to think for themselves, just drop Chrome. Ta-da!
 

Slade

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
2,539
I'm now wondering about the spoofing of sites in future. I also work with a lot of sites which tend to use prefixes a lot to distinguish between different aspects of their site so for chrome to just lob them off seems weird.
 

Bawjaws

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
443
Fortunately, for now at least, you can refer back to the old full URL in Chrome 69, and that's exactly what I've done.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,137
I'm now wondering about the spoofing of sites in future. I also work with a lot of sites which tend to use prefixes a lot to distinguish between different aspects of their site so for chrome to just lob them off seems weird.
all it's cutting off is the www part, you can still type www and you can still type whocares.whatever.com and it'll show that exact url.. but if you type in say www.hardocp.com it'll just appear as hardocp.com in the url bar.

I'm now wondering about the spoofing of sites in future. I also work with a lot of sites which tend to use prefixes a lot to distinguish between different aspects of their site so for chrome to just lob them off seems weird.
that's definitely a risk but i'm sure googles thought of that, they may make dumb decisions but they aren't morons...... hopefully, lol.
 

cyberguyz

Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
710
Well I guess it is back to Firefox for me. While I don't mind chrome's little idiosyncrasies like hiding the protocol headers, they are starting to become more like google trying to tell me how to use the web. I won't go along with that.

Being an older user of the web I can attest that things like www.domain.com, forums.domain.com, gallery.domain.com and domain.com can go to different places on the the with the magic of subdomains. And that having that first part of the domain name is a good guide on the subdomain's purpose - even for us old farts.

------------

yall might also give the duckduckgo browser a try. blocks ads pretty well (among other things) by default: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.duckduckgo.mobile.android&hl=en_US
Only good for android. Doesn't do a damn thing for me on my windows systems.
 
Last edited:

Messy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
163
i say this as someone who has been in the field for a little over 20 years and has no particular love for 'www' - leave the url the fuck alone. there is no good reason to alter The Truth in a subtractive manner. you want to paint it green? put a lock *next* to it? cool. but leave the damn url alone. it's there for a reason. you might not like it but really your opinion doesn't matter - it's not your site. go manage your own sites and expose the naked domain as the primary.

fundamentally people need to be exposed to what the real data is so that they can make informed decisions - whether it's spotting a spoof or whatever. i don't need a net nanny altering something as simple to understand and digest as a url.
 

Nobu

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
4,538
If i was going to make a spoof website I'd name it wwwgoogle.com just to spite them. Of course, they already redirect that domain to their own...www subdomain. It's almost like they use that subdomain for a reason.
 

toast0

Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
987
Google seems hell bent on wrecking everything lately.

It seems like everything they are doing lately is just making things worse.
Ok, so I'm definitely old man yelling at cloud here, but at times it feels like Google's key decision metric is if it will make my life worse (see: almost every change they've ever made to g suite admin, where they roll out a redesign, they've moved key functionality, and it takes more clicks; the one exception is when they made a 2-factor grace period, so you could add people to your organization without turning off 2fa for the whole thing or using a complex workaround)
 
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
44
They should remove the .google. too.
And all those unsightly dots and semicolons and slashes and hashes and shit no one uses anyway.

mail com mail u 0 ui 2 view btop ver fh436bfu search inbox th vmk38jngn cvid 3

There you go, all nice and clean now.

And get those ugly pillars away from buildings.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,689
Isn't it only hidden aesthetically, and when you click on or edit the URL everything shows back up again as you'd expect?
 

loopingz

n00b
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
58
My main problem is more. How to force m site to die? Or at least can Chrome never take me again to m.hardocp.com I guess it is possible but it is not obvious to me.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,689
Try, within the Hardocp website Menu, going to Settings and changing "Default Site" from "Mobile" to "Desktop"
 

CRaschNet

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
189
Count me in with the "why is this even an issue" crowd. I haven't typed "www" in an address bar since around 2001. I have a feeling most people haven't. Why would anybody miss something nobody uses?
There is a big difference between www.mydomain.com and mydomain.com. They can be two different servers or subdomains. Anyone with DNS knowldge (Especially Active Directory) knows this is going to cause problems with troubleshooting. It just Google trying to make their life easier at the cost of making everyone else more difficult.
 

triwolf

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2015
Messages
708
Arguments for maintaining the “www” and “m” subdomains in Chrome’s omnibox have fallen on deaf ears, at least partially: a Chromium project member has advised that “www” will remain hidden by default in the next version of Chrome. “M,” however, will not be elided (for at least a few releases) due to "large sites that have a user-controlled ‘m’ subdomain." While Google is asking for feedback, it is becoming pretty clear the conversation is one sided.

We plan to initiate a public standardization discussion with the appropriate standards bodies to explicitly reserve “www” or m” as special case subdomains under-the-hood. We do not plan to standardize how browsers should treat these special cases in their UI. We plan to revisit the 'm' subdomain at a later date, after having an opportunity to discuss further with the community. Please leave feedback, or let us know about sites that have user-controlled subdomains at “www” or “m” in this bug.
So when it hides www and I type it does it strip it out so I can't type www? What if I need to have www to get to my domain? Who is working it IT? There is a reason for DNS and why you are so dense to not understand that a name is a name I will never understand. Stop dumb IT decisions.
 
Top