UX Collective

We believe designers are thinkers as much as they are makers. https://linktr.ee/uxc

Follow publication

Do we really need URLs?

As you may have heard, Google recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of the launch of Chrome and it did so with a bunch of announcements and new features. Among these the most controversial one was the death of the URL. The motivation for such a drastic move was the fact that many users don’t get URLs and it was thus necessary to replace them with something more modern and user-friendly.

At this point you’re probably confused, since the URL is such an established convention on the web, but let me explain why I think this choice could really make the web better for all of us.

A bit of history

Although the debate about whether we should still be using URLs started with Google’s announcement, it’s not the first time that the Mountain View company tried to kill them: its effort started in 2014 with the introduction of the Origin Chip.

If you’re not familiar with it, it was a radical rethinking of the search box interface (or Omnibox as Google likes to call it) that replaced complex web addresses with a chip containing the domain name of the site. So instead of seeing https://www.example.com/hello/world/ in the search box, you would have just seen example.com. This was initially thought of as an anti-phishing measure, because the shortness of the Origin Chip would have made it easier for the user to spot sites with suspicious domains.

Unfortunately, the origin chip was killed before even exiting the beta stage and Google never talked about it since then.

Fixing the Origin Chip

In my opinion the Origin Chip was a great start not only because it prevented phishing, but also because it made Chrome look much cleaner by hiding URLs, that are often perceived as extremely long series of random characters.

That said, I think it had a major flaw: it only highlighted what the domain was instead of clearly stating who the site owner was. This means that a phishing attack could be still carried out by just changing a letter in the URL to one that resembled it (such as a lowercase L to an uppercase I). Furthermore, replacing the domain with the owner’s name results in a much cleaner user interface (think about it: Example Inc. looks cleaner than example.com).

Exploring the possible drawbacks

Of course URLs are useful in certain situations, such as sharing or bookmarking, but with some work they could be replaced, here are a few examples.

Sharing

One of the few things the URL does right in my opinion is its being easily shareable and for this reason I believe that, at least at the very start of Google’s experiment, we would still send URLs to other people through a share button in the browser or in web apps, thanks to Google’s Web Share API. But, in the long run, links will probably be replaced by a shareable Origin Chip, although this will take time since many services such as social networks and instant messaging apps would be required to switch to this new model.

The Web Share API allows developers to open the native share dialog on Android from their web app, thus making URL-less sharing possible

Communicating to the user

An argument I heard a lot in favor of keeping URLs alive is that many web developers use their URLs to communicate the current state of the web app (such as the page you’re in) to their users. I would respond to this criticism by arguing that many users don’t even look at the URL while navigating a website, either because they to feel the need to do it or the browser hides the URL from them (just think about the auto-hiding search box in Google Chrome for Android).

So, if you want to communicate the state of your app or website to your user, I’d suggest to make it clear through the site’s interface and not through the browser.

Conclusions

This new paradigm shouldn’t really scare us: URLs aren’t that important to the web’s users and browsers have made changes much more radical than this one in the past, a clear example would be the fact that modern browsers chose to disable by default Adobe Flash, once a fundamental web technology.

So don’t worry and start thinking about what changes you could make to your app or website to make it more usable on a web without URLs.

Sign up to discover human stories that deepen your understanding of the world.

Free

Distraction-free reading. No ads.

Organize your knowledge with lists and highlights.

Tell your story. Find your audience.

Membership

Read member-only stories

Support writers you read most

Earn money for your writing

Listen to audio narrations

Read offline with the Medium app

Written by Samuele Dassatti

Tech entrepreneur and award-winning UX designer. CEO at Igloo and creator of Fluently. Windows Insider MVP.

Responses (6)

Write a response

Isn’t what you’re describing essentially what safari already does, which is hiding the full URL from the user.

5

I don’t get the idea of this chip at all. Is every person/company with a web site to be required to buy said chip?
URLs allow you to specify far more than just a company, a company can provide direct links to any department, and any app, or any…