Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Safari on iOS 15 and macOS Monterey Automatically Upgrades Web Connections to HTTPS on Compatible Sites for Improved Security
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's because there wasn't much to follow, it was basically last year software on all platforms, with new wallpapers 🤦♂️🥺
Its pretty annoying honestly!
But secretly, it makes me afraid that I'm getting old because I don't want it to change! I thought to myself this morning that they should allow us to use a legacy layout or something like that, then I realized I sound like my Dad
Having said that - I seriously do not want it to change from what it is now in Big Sur.
Me too (also web dev/designer). What happens if the background is a gradient? Image background? Video background? Dynamic CSS animated background?
Are we going to begin getting ridiculous complaints from clients disliking the particular background Safari has taken on?
Hopefully Apple has tested many, many edge cases and this won’t be a headache for us…
I think the only thing that I genuinely thought “oh wow” is the “control your iPad through your Mac mouse/keyboard. Dragging files between them will be pretty useful for me.
I really can’t remember much else. Oh local Siri processing. That’s nice. Hopefully that comes to HomePod mini as well to speed up HomeKit interactions. It’s already much faster than Alexa/Google but still, instant would be really nice. And context aware HomeKit would be awesome too: “Turn on the main living room light. Set it to 50% brightness. Make it blue.”
Side note: I’m actually quite impressed that you can say “turn on my living room and kitchen lights” and she does both. Alexa doesn’t understand that at all and the last time I checked, neither did Google assistant.
supposedly not as FireFox is doing this as default and FF users seem happy. I am using FF with Enhance Protection set to STRICT and Cookies Auto Delete and even that is hardly breaking any sites.
It is not redundant, since that local browser difference is very significant.
For the description below NO-S refers to a HTTP URL like http://www.example.com and HAS-S refers to its similar HTTPS URL like https://www.example.com.
HTTP and HTTPS are different and the Website has to deliberately implement them for them to work. In the old days most Websites only implement http, so HAS-S will not work. Now days, many Websites implement both http and https, so both NO-S and HAS-S work—but usually what happens is the NO-S gets redirected to the HAS-S URL.
This is the insecure scenario that is common today:
1. The user types in NO-S into their browser.
2. The browser asks for NO-S (request is over insecure HTTP).
3. The site responses with a redirection, telling the browser to visit HAS-S instead (response is over insecure HTTP).
4. The browser acts on the redirection and asks for HAS-S (request is over secure HTTPS).
5. The site responds with the actual Web page (response is over secure HTTPS).
The security risk is in the insecure steps 2 and 3, since a malicious third party can intercept the unsecured HTTP request and send back its own fake response. That fake response could either be a fraudulent page (which won't show the padlock), or redirect the victim to a fraudulent URL (which can even be a HTTPS URL that would show the padlock).
When it is working normally the user doesn't realise there is an insecurity, because it happens so quickly: they perform step 1 and then almost immediately see the end result from (step 5) which has the padlock.
The secure scenario is:
1. The user types in the HAS-S into their browser.
2. The browser asks for the HAS-S (request is over secure HTTPS).
3. The site response with the actual Web page (response is over secure HTTPS).
The problem is the local browser, which it seems Apple is fixing here, and user behaviour.
Normally, the user is lazy and only types in www.example.com, and browsers in the past have treated that as the NO-S URL (i.e. the insecure scenario). And only if that fails (because the server is extra secure and has not implemented NO-S), it then tries interpreting it as the HAS-S URL. The default is to try insecure first! But browsers had to do this because in the past that is more likely to succeed.
It seems this change will mean Safari does it the other way around. It will treat www.example.com as the HAS-S URL (i.e. the secure scenario). And if that fails (because the server has not yet implemented HAS-S), it then tries interpreting it as the NO-S URL. The default is to try secure first (which is much more sensible from a security point of view).
Is this significant: consider when was the last time you deliberately typed in "https://" (taking care to type in the "s") ?
Last edited:
I use a plug-in that automatically goes for the 'S' version. If the browsers do the same thing, that would be perfect. I wouldn't need the plug-in.
Man in the middle attacks are hard to fight. Encryption *should* be able to handle them.
You’re not the only one and it isn’t about age. I took a screen video recording and shared it with a half dozen people I know who are UI or UX engineers at a variety of medium to large companies here in the north metropolitan Atlanta area.Its pretty annoying honestly!
But secretly, it makes me afraid that I'm getting old because I don't want it to change! I thought to myself this morning that they should allow us to use a legacy layout or something like that, then I realized I sound like my Dad
Having said that - I seriously do not want it to change from what it is now in Big Sur.
I told them that the web colorization could be turned off by user settings the address/search bar is tied to the active tab and that this has no user control. The consensus seems to be that this is very poor from a UX standpoint. They don’t know why Apple chose what is essentially a floating address/search bar. I was told that it not only breaks the conventions of working top right to left bottom, but it wrecks decades of muscle memory and habit. And while there isn’t some UX bible they pass around, there are some principles they use that have been born out over time.
I was told that most UX designers wouldn’t create this type of floating interface element on a tabbed interface just because there would be a plethora of confused and/or aggravated users and it wouldn’t be worth going through the hassle for an interface implementation that doesn’t seem to save time, improve ease of use, or increase productivity.
It was boring. I actually fell asleep about half way. And I can’t seem to remember Monterey without looking. Hopefully I can get Safari 14 to run on it. Try the new Safari browser. Annoyance has a name and it’s Safari 15.
Its pretty annoying honestly!
But secretly, it makes me afraid that I'm getting old because I don't want it to change! I thought to myself this morning that they should allow us to use a legacy layout or something like that, then I realized I sound like my Dad
Having said that - I seriously do not want it to change from what it is now in Big Sur.
Yeah, I remember the home button-less iPad and iPhone filled me with dread. I didn't expect to like the way they changed the whole thing. 'WHAT? NO BUTTON? NOOOOO!!!!' But it worked, and I found myself swiping up on my older iPad Mini. *DOH* Fearing change isn't something to flail yourself over. Nature likes stability, and stability often means no change, stasis. But change can be good, but not all change IS good. *shrug*
I had to laugh when a client asked me why Microsoft changed the menus in Office. My answer: 'Because they can'. It didn't make it better, but it was different.
You nailed it - it’s not linear, not logical, and it goes against the rest of the layouts and UI of the entire OS. I don’t want the browser colour to change with reason - I’m focused on my work, I don’t need it to be pretty.
Safari may be the reason I won’t upgrade to Monterey- or maybe I need to use another browser from now on.
Thank Ford there are options. I've used FireFox since, well, nearly forever. There is a lot of the Apple UI that could be killed and I'd never miss them.
I find the menus better in Office and the swipe up UI implementation makes sense with a buttonless device. Just like moving the address bar to the bottom of iOS makes sense in iOS 15. It was that way in Windows phone and it was much easier to use. But the address/search bar just floating about doesn’t make sense. It’s not quickly and easily noticed when arrayed somewhere in the middle of open tabs, each looking largely the same. That it can be right, left, or center means you have to open a new tab at best just to get the interface element where it’s going to in a predictable place on the far right and we all look center or center left. We read our screens top left to bottom right. It’s how humans scan the horizon looking for predators.Yeah, I remember the home button-less iPad and iPhone filled me with dread. I didn't expect to like the way they changed the whole thing. 'WHAT? NO BUTTON? NOOOOO!!!!' But it worked, and I found myself swiping up on my older iPad Mini. *DOH* Fearing change isn't something to flail yourself over. Nature likes stability, and stability often means no change, stasis. But change can be good, but not all change IS good. *shrug*
I had to laugh when a client asked me why Microsoft changed the menus in Office. My answer: 'Because they can'. It didn't make it better, but it was different.
Good UX isn’t just a developer saying that something looks simple and clean, so it’s good. That’s sometimes the case. And when Apple is at its best that is more often the case than not. But sometimes even Apple designers make choices that are mind boggling. I’ve spent days trying to fit this into my workflow and it’s not just new, it’s awkward. It’s difficult to use at a glance. It sacrifices speed and accuracy for aesthetics. Even friend of mine who work as UX engineers have looked at this in screen recordings and they wonder how many people will be confused by the interface. It’s not something they would personally implement and it isn’t something I want to deal with. And worse, I don’t know who this is for or what problem it seeks to solve.
Yeah, you’re right. I was like why are they mentioning this feature if it doesn’t do something cool.
But after reading the documentation it is just asking for the https of the site instead of http when the site doesn’t have a rewrite rule setup to redirect from http to https in their DNS configuration.
So… not really helping developers because we’re going to have to do it anyways for non Safari users.
You’re right there are choices and I use them on occasion where certain objects don’t render or a media content doesn’t display correctly. The odd case where Safari doesn’t work out. But I’m using iCloud Keychain and I like that I can browse and enter passwords and auto fill credit cards and use the wonderful UX that Apple has refined and improved over years.
Password managers and Authenticators have choices too. But I’m really not looking forward to having to use MS Edge on my MacBook Pro by default. Partly because of the power efficiency of Safari and how well it manages memory.
Apple software really is highly optimized to work well with its own hardware. But if I have to use a different browser, and if I’m then forced to use a different password manager, what’s next? A different cloud service provider?
At what point do I not just use MS Edge, Office365, and Authenticator on the iPhone and move to a Windows10 laptop that is more powerful for the money?
I love that I can use macOS, Windows10, and Linux. And I’m learning to develop across the various platforms. But the value added proposition of Apple’s macOS and its integration into an ecosystem that is fast, easy to use, secure, and built around privacy are what motivates me to enjoy Apple products over its competitors.
If they start forcing me out of their ecosystem by implementing dumb UI choices- then what’s the point? I don’t hate Windows. I just don’t like it nearly as much as I love macOS. And if I’m going to get software that mostly does what I want, even if not quite, and the OS does mostly what I want, if not quite. Why pay a little more for my preferred OS to move into the camp of does kinda what I want? I can get that from the competitor for less.
it’s like when I went to my barber the other day. I booked an appointment 7 days out to have my barber cut my hair. When I got there they sat me with someone else. It was technically the same haircut, but without the attention to details nor did he trace the hairlines with the razor giving it that sharp edge that just pops. So I walked out paying $50 for a cut, trim, and tip from a barber that was just next available.
I could walk in to Great Clips and get the next barber available, no appointment, and get sorta the same cut with tip for $30.
And my point is that we all know that macs are a little more expensive. I don’t think they are overpriced the way that is commonly hurled as a criticism against Apple. But I am paying more and I expect to get the same or better from when it’s upgrade time.
If Apple can’t bring any new features and they want to give facelifts for its own sake- I’d rather they just squash bugs and announce a new release that features more stability, more security, and fewer bugs. I don’t need feature creep if it brings aggravation. But they can implement UI toggles to give both UI implementations so that everyone goes home happy.
my instinct is that a toolbar customization featuring a full-size and compact UI option will be released as Safari 16 for MacOS 13 in 2022 and it will be the best Safari ever made. Making a mess just to fix it and call it a feature.
I was referring to the 'ribbon bar' system they came out with. Many of our clients weren't enamored with it. The expected it to have some of it (more of it) stay static I guess, and finding commands wasn't very 'intuitive'...
Last edited:
Gotcha. I remember the ribbon. It wasn’t my favorite either. I think a static toolbar with some customization options is the best way to go.