I agree with trying to phase out HTTP, but I think their method is "annoying." What do features have to do with HTTP Vs. HTTPS? It just seems like an arbitrary punishment.
Wouldn't it just be significantly easier to simply change the URL art style to make clear that HTTP is "insecure." Like a red broken padlock on every HTTP page?
That has the following advantages:
- HTTP remains fully working for internal/development/localhost/appliance usage (no broken features).
- Users are reminded that HTTP is not secure.
- Webmasters are "embarrassed" into upgrading to HTTPS.
- Fully backwards compatible.
Seems like a perfect solution where everyone wins.
Wouldn't it just be significantly easier to simply change the URL art style to make clear that HTTP is "insecure." Like a red broken padlock on every HTTP page?
That has the following advantages:
- HTTP remains fully working for internal/development/localhost/appliance usage (no broken features).
- Users are reminded that HTTP is not secure.
- Webmasters are "embarrassed" into upgrading to HTTPS.
- Fully backwards compatible.
Seems like a perfect solution where everyone wins.