There are lots of text fields out there that want you to enter a URL, but many of them think they’re doing you a favor by putting http:// in the field for you. I don’t find this helpful because I’m usually pasting the URL into the field, meaning I have to get rid of the http:// before I paste.
The site that set me off on this little rant is URL info.
An even better solution is to make the http:// optional, so if I am typing in a domain I can skip it and just enter the domain (e.g. google.com).
After writing that last part I checked the site and it automatically added the http:// to google.com. That makes it even more odd that they put it there in the first place, because it’s not necessary and gets in the way if you’re pasting.
I think the problem with the URLinfo site is that the field has no label. If it weren’t for the http:// there, users wouldn’t know how to use the field. I can see the authors are trying to keep the design compact, but a field label really is necessary on that site.
I can kinda see your point, but you can always do this: instead of just clicking on the text field (to set the focus), you can click & drag your mouse at the same time, so as to select the HTTP part. Then paste, and you’re done.
In other words, as long as the HTTP part isn’t “hard-coded”, you can deal with it without a hitch.
Imagine, though if you had a text field where the HTTP was “hard-coded”, as in:
Please enter your
http:// [text-field-here]
Now that would be a lousy implementation.
Thanks for the feedback on URLinfo.
Hint: leave the “http://” bit in *and* paste in a URL starting with “http://”. See what I mean? This feature existed prior to these comments, btw.
Also URLinfo I think works best as a bookmarklet, as opposed to going to the site and pasting a URL in.
Konstantinos: I agree, but why make users have to do that?
Michael: I didn’t realize it could cope with double http://'s. Thanks for letting me know.
It’s a tough decision, but thankfully it won’t cause any world wars.
And the capability of dealing with multiple “http://”s isn’t written anywhere, so you wouldn’t notice unless you tried it.
So your overall URLinfo experience is now satisfying? ;-)
Dan: because for those who don’t do copying & pasting, having the “http://” means they don’t have to type 7 extra characters. So, we gotta have a quick workaround (the one I’ve mentioned, for example).
Meredith: if the sole purpose of the “http://” inside the text field is to let the users know this is supposed to be a URL, you can simply add some javascript*, so that when the user clicks on the field, the “http://” part magically disappears.
So you get to let the users know it’s a URL, and you keep Dan happy. (Just teasing you on that last one, Dan.)
* Javascript code: onfocus=”if(this.value==’http://’)this.value=”;” onblur=”if(this.value==”)this.value=’http://’;”
Let’s hope the aforementioned bit of Javascript gets rendered smoothly. You can see a live demo of it, on my website (have a look at the search form on the right sidebar).
Michael: Indeed it has. Thanks for making the site available.
Konstantinos: But the http:// isn’t even required, remember? Typing in google.com works fine.
You’re referring to the “URL Info” service, I’m speaking more generally (for example: weblog comments).
And yes, you can probably have the “URL” field in weblog comments automatically append a “http://” prefix when it notices it’s not there; just a line or two of scripting.
I originally approached this issue from the point of what the user can do to make it work, quickly and efficiently, without having to test whether it works without the “http://” so he can use it that way.
Of course, I’m with you; work on the problem on the programmer’s front, modify it so that it works invisibly for the user (has he included the “http://” prefix? rock on, hasn’t he? let me put it there automatically before posting it), that’s what good programming is all about.
Hope it’s all clearer now.