Chrome just had to go and break things.

scgtrp

Friendly tip: the Office 200X shot you posted is scaled to about 70%, so its actual height is more like 1/0.7 * 92 = 131px
Lucky for you, that rough estimate doesn't discount your point, but the "measurement" is in the category "what were you thinking trying to run this screenshot by us."

Very well. I was on Linux when I posted that so I just dug up a pair of screenshots from Google and assumed that was some idiot saving a screenshot as a .jpg. Have another:

dhromed

Well, that settles that, then.

blakeyrat

@scgtrp said:

@dhromed said:
Friendly tip: the Office 200X shot you posted is scaled to about 70%, so its actual height is more like 1/0.7 * 92 = 131px
Lucky for you, that rough estimate doesn't discount your point, but the "measurement" is in the category "what were you thinking trying to run this screenshot by us."

Very well. I was on Linux when I posted that so I just dug up a pair of screenshots from Google and assumed that was some idiot saving a screenshot as a .jpg. Have another:

Party pooper.

But seriously, you couldn't tell that screenshot was scaled down just by looking at it? Seriously? ... I'm concerned about your eyesight.

Someone_You_Know

@SQLDave said:

@scgtrp said:
But I do expect them not to remove features and force me into their supposedly superior way of working when I actually *do* work better with the old way.

This.
A great example, IMO, is the removal in Windows 7 of the "Up" button...
...OK, the new interface is gee-whiz, hot-stuff, super-cool, better... fine. But why take AWAY an incredibly useful (to me, anyway) feature? It smacks -- as do so many changes in IT -- of "change for the sake of change".

I miss the Up button too. This is one of those times when I have trouble believing that much real usability testing went into a design decision.

For what it's worth, though, there is still a keyboard shortcut for it: Alt + Up Arrow.

blakeyrat

I guess we have to go back to panicking over a trivial Chrome change again...

scgtrp

@blakeyrat said:

But seriously, you couldn't tell that screenshot was scaled down just by looking at it? Seriously? ... I'm concerned about your eyesight.

Alright, yeah, I suck. Not sure how I missed that.

Joeyg

@Someone You Know said:

For what it's worth, though, there is still a keyboard shortcut for it: Alt + Up Arrow.

Not "still" - that shortcut didn't work in XP. Incredibly irritating - it made nautilus look good, despite using twice as much space for UI and taking forever to load.

With Windows 7 I get the same thing trying Ctrl+L to select the address bar.

Someone_You_Know

@Joeyg said:

@Someone You Know said:
For what it's worth, though, there is still a keyboard shortcut for it: Alt + Up Arrow.

Not "still" - that shortcut didn't work in XP. Incredibly irritating - it made nautilus look good, despite using twice as much space for UI and taking forever to load.

With Windows 7 I get the same thing trying Ctrl+L to select the address bar.

Yes, "still". It's not the same key, but there still is a key. In XP it's backspace and in 7 it's Alt + Up. Backspace does something different in 7.

Not even halfway through Monday and I'm having to explain the meaning of the word "still". This week is off to a great start...

Joeyg

@Someone You Know said:

Yes, "still". It's not the same key, but there still is a key. In XP it's backspace and in 7 it's Alt + Up. Backspace does something different in 7.

That's an insane shortcut. Even vi has mnemonics that aren't (apparently deliberately) misleading.

In 7, I hit backspace a few times and it took me to my Libraries, then to Desktop. My back/forward buffer now has only those two places in it, with no reference at all to where I was. In other words, "backspace" appears to me "fuck things up".

Someone_You_Know

@Joeyg said:

That's an insane shortcut. Even vi has mnemonics that aren't (apparently deliberately) misleading.

I don't think changing the shortcut and removing the button was a good idea, but I don't think Alt + Up as a shortcut for the "Up" operation is particularly misleading.

Joeyg

I meant "backspace" was an insane shortcut for "up". Ctrl+Up makes sense.

davedavenotdavemaybe

@Lingerance said:

@barfoo said:
@SQLDave said:
I always wondered how to phonetically spell "H". Thanks!
The correct spelling is in fact "aitch."
NATO says Hotel. I trust them more.

I had to learn the NATO phonetic alphabet when my boss realised that whenever I was spelling things out on the phone, my mind would only ever suggest obscenities. Apparently 'h' for 'horsecocks' is not best business practice.

Someone_You_Know

@Joeyg said:

I meant "backspace" was an insane shortcut for "up". Ctrl+Up makes sense.

Oops, my bad. In that case, I'd agree it's misleading, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it was deliberately misleading. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, or whatever that old line is.

locallunatic

@Someone You Know said:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, or whatever that old line is.

I think it's incompetence instead of stupidity, but not sure. I've always found it more reassuring to go the other way, as I find people being jerks easier to tolerate than them being incompetent.

davedavenotdavemaybe

@locallunatic said:

@Someone You Know said:
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, or whatever that old line is.

I think it's incompetence instead of stupidity, but not sure. I've always found it more reassuring to go the other way, as I find people being jerks easier to tolerate than them being incompetent.

If it's one or the other, but not both, I count that a win.

There are so many posts that I'm gonna just post a bunch of points and let you figure out which is a reply to which.

About the main point — I wouldn't mind if Chrome hid the scheme on all URIs (for example, by showing an icon instead of the scheme), but if it only does it for http, it's inconsistent and ugly. Plus, I'm not sure how does copying work. Will the clipboard include "http://" if you only select a part of the URI? What if that part is the domain name, and nothing else?

For what it's worth, there's an ambiguity in such treatment. Consider https://bank.example/. Is it an https URI, or is it http://https://bank.example/? Even though the browser would likely normalize the latter to http://https//bank.example/, it will still be shown as https//bank.example/, which is similar enough to aid in a phishing attack. (Note: I've never used Chrome and may be making invalid assumptions about it. No need to be snarky.)

Relying on http sites redirecting you to the https version is insecure, because a man in the middle will trivially abuse this by not redirecting.

Finally, there is no such thing as an "URL scheme". You're talking about URI schemes. URL is an acceptable (if a bit dated) term for a URI that specifies the location of a resource, but it can't be just substituted for URI whenever you feel like it.

RTapeLoadingError

@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

I had to learn the NATO phonetic alphabet when my boss realised that whenever I was spelling things out on the phone, my mind would only ever suggest obscenities. Apparently 'h' for 'horsecocks' is not best business practice.

Did you have a whole phonetic alphabet that ended in 'cocks'?

A is for alligatorcocks

B is for butterflycocks

Lingerance

@RTapeLoadingError said:

Did you have a whole phonetic alphabet that ended in 'cocks'?

C is for cuntcocks

Indrora

@Lingerance said:

@RTapeLoadingError said:
Did you have a whole phonetic alphabet that ended in 'cocks'?

C is for cuntcocks

D is for Doorcocks.

XIU

Chrome Omnibar

Just to give an idea of how it looks at the moment.

dhromed

@XIU said:

Just to give an idea of how it looks at the moment.

Looks nice.

What's the skull? Fake phishing https?

ender

@dhromed said:

What's the skull? Fake phishing https?

Most likely a self-signed or expired certificate (or certificate for a different domain).

XIU

@ender said:

@dhromed said:
What's the skull? Fake phishing https?
Most likely a self-signed or expired certificate (or certificate for a different domain).

Any failed certificate and even on websites with mixed encrypted/non-encrypted content.

blakeyrat

@dhromed said:

@XIU said:
Just to give an idea of how it looks at the moment.

Looks nice.
What's the skull? Fake phishing https?

That's just the favicon for Warhammer 40k's website.

Indrora

@blakeyrat said:

@dhromed said:
@XIU said:
Just to give an idea of how it looks at the moment.

Looks nice.
What's the skull? Fake phishing https?

That's just the favicon for Warhammer 40k's website.

No, they us a b& hammer because of their fans.

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

@dhromed said:
Looks nice.
What's the skull? Fake phishing https?

That's just the favicon for Warhammer 40k's website.

Looks like a ninja pirate just sliced right through the protocol, KILLING IT MESSILY.

too_many_usernames

@XIU said:

@ender said:
@dhromed said:
What's the skull? Fake phishing https?
Most likely a self-signed or expired certificate (or certificate for a different domain).

Any failed certificate and even on websites with mixed encrypted/non-encrypted content.

I seriously wish there was some organization you could notify so that sites that don't keep their certificates up to date could be penalized, perhaps by just refusing to resolve their domains in DNS for an hour or two. That would be even better than a fine, methinks.

(Yes, I'm serious.)

blakeyrat

@too_many_usernames said:

@XIU said:
@ender said:
@dhromed said:
What's the skull? Fake phishing https?
Most likely a self-signed or expired certificate (or certificate for a different domain).

Any failed certificate and even on websites with mixed encrypted/non-encrypted content.

I seriously wish there was some organization you could notify so that sites that don't keep their certificates up to date could be penalized, perhaps by just refusing to resolve their domains in DNS for an hour or two. That would be even better than a fine, methinks.
(Yes, I'm serious.)

Every browser on Earth putting up a dozen warnings when you try to submit information to it isn't punishment enough?

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

Every browser on Earth putting up a dozen warnings when you try to submit information to it isn't punishment enough?

They'll just click OK.

too_many_usernames

@blakeyrat said:

Every browser on Earth putting up a dozen warnings when you try to submit information to it isn't punishment enough?

There appears to have been a misunderstanding - I meant punish the site owner, not the site users.

PJH

@Spectre said:

Finally, there is no such thing as an "URL scheme".

I'm still certain that the (tech) people (who I work with) look at me funny when I say URI when URL would (in their eyes) do just as well.

My comments on port numbers or ftp or https go over some of their heads.

The rest, I'm sure, think I'm mis-pronunciating it.

blakeyrat

@too_many_usernames said:

@blakeyrat said:
Every browser on Earth putting up a dozen warnings when you try to submit information to it isn't punishment enough?
There appears to have been a misunderstanding - I meant punish the site owner, not the site users.

Presuming the site owner makes money from the site, that does punish them.

Presuming they don't, they don't care what you do.

davedavenotdavemaybe

@PJH said:

@Spectre said:
Finally, there is no such thing as an "URL scheme".
I'm still certain that the (tech) people (who I work with) look at me funny when I say URI when URL would (in their eyes) do just as well.

My comments on port numbers or ftp or https go over some of their heads.

The rest, I'm sure, think I'm mis-pronunciating it.

No, they just think you're wrong, because you are. You're correct about the exact technical definitions, but those are no longer relevant to the normal usage. I understand the difference you're pointing out, but to most people a URL is another name for the bit you type in the address bar of the browser. Radar, laser, and so-on are similar examples of acronyms turned into words that no longer refer to the specific original expansion of the acronym, but instead are used for the general category of things. Radar remains radar whatever the wavelength used, for example.

RTapeLoadingError

@Indrora said:

@Lingerance said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
Did you have a whole phonetic alphabet that ended in 'cocks'?
C is for cuntcocks
D is for Doorcocks.
Filed under: E is for Eyecocks.

I don't mean to criticise but I don't think "eyecocks" is the best phonetic word for the letter "E".

locallunatic

@too_many_usernames said:

@blakeyrat said:
Every browser on Earth putting up a dozen warnings when you try to submit information to it isn't punishment enough?
There appears to have been a misunderstanding - I meant punish the site owner, not the site users.

Wouldn't preventing resolution of a domain also punish users? Generally if you are trying to use a site and can't get to it (no matter the reason) it is something that is frustrating.

blakeyrat

So has society collapsed due to this URL display change in Chrome yet?

I looked out the window, and I don't *see* the Google Death Squads slaughtering innocents with chainsaw bayonets, but I can't be entirely sure. I got plenty of ammo, just in case.

dhromed

@blakeyrat said:

I don't *see* the Google Death Squads slaughtering innocents with chainsaw bayonets, but I can't be entirely sure.

They're not there yet.

danixdefcon5

@blakeyrat said:

When's the last time you actually typed a HTTPS URL into your browser?

Today.

In fact, using the actual https:// URLs is a security practice I have had for many years, and have extended this practice to everyone who's actually listening. This saved my uncle from falling for a phishing scheme which edited his /etc/hosts (well, the equivalent on Windows is C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts) to redirect the bank's host entry to a phishing site. As he typed in the https:// url, it would give him "connection problems", which led to him asking me why he couldn't get on the bank's website, and finally to me finding out about the scam.. HTTP to HTTPS redirection is nice, but you shouldn't depend on it.

I too agree that hiding the protocol is as stupid as hiding file extensions.

Note: Most browsers break if I try to use localhost:8080/something URLs.

stratos

There is no reason why browser makers couldn't maintain a whitelist in the same way as most/some are now maintaining a black list of phising/malware sites.
By whatever method, a list could be compiled of sites that want to serve their content over https and browsers could do that proactively, without you actually having to type/choose it.

@RTapeLoadingError said:

I don't mean to criticise but I don't think "eyecocks" is the best phonetic word for the letter "E".

Apple will sue you for infringing on their iCocks trademark.

RTapeLoadingError

@El_Heffe said:

Apple will sue you for infringing on their iCocks trademark.

Well, credit where credit's due...

@RTapeLoadingError said:

@iNdrora said:
[quote user="Lingerance"]@RTapeLoadingError said:
Did you have a whole phonetic alphabet that ended in 'cocks'?
C is for cuntcocks
D is for Doorcocks.
Filed under: E is for Eyecocks.

I don't mean to criticise but I don't think "eyecocks" is the best phonetic word for the letter "E".

[/quote]

So I guess Jobs will have to set his legal bulldogs on "iNdrora"

blakeyrat

@dhromed said:

@blakeyrat said:
I don't see the Google Death Squads slaughtering innocents with chainsaw bayonets, but I can't be entirely sure.

They're not there yet.

Ok, well, this version of Chrome is release now. I'm updated to it at work and at home, and still no Death Squads.

I'm starting to think that this whole thing was much ado about nothing. But... surely not! Not our beloved tech community! They wouldn't get so worked up over a non-issue, would they? Unthinkable.