Slightly OT about urls

[Eddie G. O'Connor Jr.]

On 09/13/2012 08:27 AM, Tim wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:44 +1000, Roger wrote:
>> In this particular case it would be  handy if the url remained
>> constant.  All the viewer needs to know is the base url.  I'm thinking
>> that subdirectory displays could be irrelevant.
>> Maybe I'm completely wrong here. I'm no expert in urls and navigation.
> Generally speaking, and being generous with the paintbrush, when a
> designer thinks that "all the user needs to know is ..." there will be
> something wrong with the assumption.
>
>> I would have thought that the user/viewer knows exactly where they are
>> because they have typed in an easily recognisable base url and
>> selected from a small menu list.
> And then...  After clicking here and there, trying to see where they
> are, trying to cope with a website that keeps loading the same page yet
> shouldn't be, wanting to bookmark a page *within* the site, or go
> directly to a page within the site without clicking through several
> other pages in sequence...  The list goes on.
>
> Frame based sites had the same "designed by bastards incorporated"
> problem (a pseudo-company in a comedy show, for anything that was a pain
> to use, and we've all experienced something like that, that we could
> call it that).  All you ever saw, with framed sites, was www.example.com
> in the address bar, no matter where you were in the site.
>
> The navigation bar, or address gadget, or whatever you want to call it,
> is an essential part of the browser.  Take that away, and it's like
> taking away all the floor numbers outside the lifts in a multi-story
> building, and claiming that the patron really doesn't need to know what
> floor they're on.  That only holds true for two conditions:  Them
> entering, visiting one floor, then exiting.  Them entering, visiting a
> floor, and going back to the lobby between every floor that they visit.
>
> It's a design error.
>
>> I'm uncertain that urls actually matter to the viewer,
> They do.
>
>> I browse hundreds of sites/pages over a year and note that many become
>> acutely complex, excessively large and don't fit in the display field.
> That's a different design error.  But, despite that, they'll be unique
> addresses per page.
>
> Try making every page have the same address, and you start breaking the
> ability of the browser to hit the back-page button, and go back to the
> prior page (or pages, for multiple presses), then go (correctly) forward
> again.
>
> I'm trying to advise you not to paint yourself into a corner.
>
This all sounds so confusing! But I think I've actally been to a site 
like that once! It was "based" out of China....and no matter WHAT link 
you clicked on, you'd go to a separate page that had NO way to hit the 
"Back" button on your browser!.....How is that even POSSIBLE!?


EGO II