Comments on: The www Problem http://iloveusability.com/usability-tip/www-problem/ Reviews & articles about rock-solid usability and stunning user experiences. Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:31:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Pavan Garre http://iloveusability.com/usability-tip/www-problem/#comment-262 Pavan Garre Sat, 27 Feb 2010 15:30:11 +0000 http://iloveusability.com/?p=120#comment-262 This entire article can be posted as a tweet/a small message and that is best usable practice of writing for web."Make sure your site work with www/without www" that's it. The arguments produced are missing the fact, users learn and adapt over the go. Bigger usability problems designers had with fancy URLs names like http://del.icio.us, which now fixed by redirecting to delicious.com. I registered for delicious account because it's creative URL. In this delicious context I personally don't like the more usable URL over creative URL. This entire article can be posted as a tweet/a small message and that is best usable practice of writing for web.”Make sure your site work with www/without www” that’s it. The arguments produced are missing the fact, users learn and adapt over the go. Bigger usability problems designers had with fancy URLs names like http://del.icio.us, which now fixed by redirecting to delicious.com. I registered for delicious account because it’s creative URL. In this delicious context I personally don’t like the more usable URL over creative URL.

]]> By: Luke Jones http://iloveusability.com/usability-tip/www-problem/#comment-217 Luke Jones Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:11:09 +0000 http://iloveusability.com/?p=120#comment-217 I think your conclusion is a little mixed up and leaning towards a http://yourdomain.com/ URL way too much - a bit like the rest of your article. The usability aspect of having www or no www is so minor that it's neither here nor there. If you asked over 100 people if they though the 'www' was necessary, I'm sure they would say yes straight away - because the 'WWW' has been slammed into their minds every time they see a url. I think your conclusion is a little mixed up and leaning towards a http://yourdomain.com/ URL way too much – a bit like the rest of your article.

The usability aspect of having www or no www is so minor that it’s neither here nor there. If you asked over 100 people if they though the ‘www’ was necessary, I’m sure they would say yes straight away – because the ‘WWW’ has been slammed into their minds every time they see a url.

]]> By: Tim O'Brien http://iloveusability.com/usability-tip/www-problem/#comment-28 Tim O'Brien Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:20:17 +0000 http://iloveusability.com/?p=120#comment-28 There was a post on the Google webmaster blog about the www vs. non-www SEO concerns. SO at least with Google, you can use rel="canonical" on the page you want to link to and still have www and non-www links count toward relevancy. http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/duplicate-content-and-multiple-site.html There was a post on the Google webmaster blog about the www vs. non-www SEO concerns. SO at least with Google, you can use rel=”canonical” on the page you want to link to and still have www and non-www links count toward relevancy.

http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/09/duplicate-content-and-multiple-site.html

]]> By: Url Redirection Service http://iloveusability.com/usability-tip/www-problem/#comment-23 Url Redirection Service Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:09:49 +0000 http://iloveusability.com/?p=120#comment-23 For example, under the DocumentRoot , Prefix Substitution with //thishost[:thisport]/ (which makes the new URL a URI) to force an external redirection. <a href="http://referer.us/make-long-urls-short.html" rel="nofollow">Url Redirection Service</a> For example, under the DocumentRoot , Prefix Substitution with //thishost[:thisport]/ (which makes the new URL a URI) to force an external redirection. Url Redirection Service

]]>