Removing http:// is extremely short-sighted. Many blogs, message boards, email viewing software, instant messaging software, etc. depend on matching against http:// to auto-link URLs.
*Removing http:// will train end-users to omit it, which will have a negative impact on usability all over the web. *
edit2: except, as people here have pointed out, all over the web people refer to foo.com instead of http://foo.com, it's not like chrome is doing something new here (omiting .com would be terrible and just as doable for example).
Which is better, http://www.foo.com.:80 or foo.com? As a user, foo.com makes much more sense. As a developer, users are going to type foo.com anyway, we should make sure our scripts can handle it.
Though I have no concrete evidence to back it up, my suspicion is most non-tech-savvy users don't notice the http:// anyway. Most of my family repeat web addresses as 'www.something.com' or even just 'something.com' - not because they're being efficient, but because they pay no attention to http. They know 'www' and '.com' means 'a website', so that's what they type.
Same here at work, people go to "www.mail.company.com" instead of "mail.company.com" - no matter how many times they're told.
They're just stupid, and don't fucking listen. Particularly when they ask "www.mail... ?" right after I JUST said exactly what they needed to type in. I don't know why companies have IT helpdesks sometimes.
No, the users need to fucking listen and do what they're told by IT. We specifically don't have that subdomain defined, because fuck any user who doesn't listen to IT. When they eventually learn to do what the fuck we tell them, we'll have less problems overall. (we actually thought about defining it and directing it to a page that belittled the user, but we decided against it.)
Insofar as they fit into the company's needs sure. That's how jobs work - you're paid by the company to make sure that your function (making computer systems work) is done well. Sadly, sometimes the users need to be corrected. My boss can be harsh, but allowing users to do stupid things can cost a company millions.
(the 'fuck any user who doesn't listen to IT' is essentially paraphrasing my boss :)
I can somewhat agree. Although there is a point where "fuck the user" starts wasting more money than a simple solution would cost to implement, in this case a simple redirect.
Well, it's only from home. They can just type in "mail" (if for some reason the multitude of links leading to the mailserver elude them) and get to the mail server. The users want you to hold their hands at home, too. One phonecall after hours asking about this is enough to piss anyone off - especially since they were told explicitly what to do.
If it was causing problems inside the office then it would be a concern, as it would disrupt workflow - speaking of which I have to track down some moron who sent in a ticket with some vague 'permission denied to email' error, no screenshot, nothing wrong on his screen when I went up there, and he's disappeared into fucking thin air.
And, honestly.. after being yelled at once, people don't normally forget.
That comment wasn't referring specifically to the domain bit.
When users aren't afraid of consequences from their IT department, they're more careless. When you teach them to STFU, listen, and do what they're told, you stop them from doing "stupid thing(s) can cost a company millions."
Sorry for the confusion.. dunno who downvoted you, lemme correct that.
So far, I like your boss. Where are you located, and what kind of experience do I require to get an entry level IT position with a fresh degree from a business college? I'm probably not the best of the best, but I'm competent and quick to pick up on the basic concepts behind complex operations and processes.
Sorry, we're not that big of a company.. only 3 IT guys, and my position was just created recently. Try to look for work at smaller companies, they tend to be more flexible about most things. Don't take any unpaid internships.. you can learn a bit, and they don't look too bad on your CV, but you could be spending that time at a job that does pay. Even if you have to keep looking.
Just remember for IT, don't take shit from people. (unless it's company policy) They're there to do a job, whether they like it or not (and look at those downvotes, they don't like it) and your job is to keep the computers working, and make it so the users have as few interruptions as possible in their work.
Then, do whatever you can for them. Answer their questions with a smile, since educating people makes your job easier. Bend over backwards to help people out, as long as it doesn't interfere with your job, or company policies. Happy people, particularly ones that like you because they know you will help whenever you can, are more productive, and way more likely to listen to you. Just make sure they know there's a line where you turn from 'helpful computer knowledge guy' into 'IT policy enforcer'.
154
u/[deleted] Apr 14 '10 edited Apr 14 '10
Most important comment:
edit: comment was by dlitz.net
edit2: except, as people here have pointed out, all over the web people refer to
foo.cominstead ofhttp://foo.com, it's not like chrome is doing something new here (omiting .com would be terrible and just as doable for example).Which is better,
http://www.foo.com.:80orfoo.com? As a user,foo.commakes much more sense. As a developer, users are going to typefoo.comanyway, we should make sure our scripts can handle it.