Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

On 16/08/11 16:25, aardmaat wrote:
> On 15 aug, 19:40, Asa Dotzler<[email protected]>  wrote:
>
>>> Besides, if I ever had an doubts, I can always look right above the
>>> text, see, "Firefox 5" then google "What is the latest version of
>>> Firefox" and see "Firefox 6 is being released tomorrow" on google
>>> news. So I know tomorrow, I can check for updates again, and I'll have
>>> the latest.
>>
>> This is the part that needs to be eliminated. Users should not feel the
>> need to compare a number in the About dialog with a number they found on
>> the web somewhere.
>
> I disagree with you. It's logical you want people to stop worrying
> about version numbers and it's good you're working on that but some
> users do want to know the version number and some users do want to
> compare it with other numbers and nobody else then those people can
> decide if those people do or not. I think it's a very simple scenario
> you have: Most users don't mind having the version number displayed
> (they just don't care) but some do mind the version number not being
> displayed. So if it's there, nobody has a problem, if it's not there
> some people have a problem (and you can say they don't but if they
> feel they have a problem, they have a problem, it's as simple as
> that).
>
>> You cannot roll back Firefox versions without losing support. You get
>> automatic updates with Firefox unless you've disabled that feature which
>> you absolutely should not unless you're trying to get exploited.
>>
>> No one is taking these things away. You can roll back. You can turn off
>> updates. It's just a foolish thing to do in all but very exceptional
>> cases and we discourage it.
>
> well, I don't know if you've ever checked comments on articles about
> firefox but to many people seem to be willing to be at risk of being
> exploited just to stay with an older version.
> most people just don't like change, especially if features or
> information they like gets ditched (many people for example liked the
> keyword.URL to be http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=
> and many people liked the menu-bar and many people like to be able to
> see the version number; sure al those changes can be undone, but some
> of those people don't know how to do that, or are just not willing to
> go trough a lot of trouble just to regain what they already have) so
> if you are making changes that don't obviously benefit (almost) all
> users, many users will find it annoying. Of course the fear of changes
> shouldn't make firefox completely freeze all it's features, but it is
> a factor that must always be considered (I'm sure you did, but I ask
> you to consider it again).

…and when Firefox 2 removed the throbber link, so many people wanted 
that feature back (a feature which the developers in charge described as 
"used by nobody" and "undiscoverable") that two extensions (that I know 
of; maybe more) restored the functionality — a very simple one which 
appeared soon after it was evident that it would never be restored in 
plain-vanilla Firefox, and did just that and nothing else; and a very 
complex one, still popular today though it has had problems keeping up 
with Firefox 4 and later, which added that functionality to a lot of 
other things it already did.

>
> off-topic:
> if you're going to implement a date instead of a version number (as
> some recommended), please use the local date notation. In the Dutch
> aurora version for example it says 7.0a2 (2011-08-15) (jjjj-mm-dd)
> while in the Netherlands we use (dd-mm-jjjj) so it should be 7.0a2
> (15-08-2011). I know this isn't really the place to say that, but just
> in case you decide to use the date: translate the date to.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country

The reason for 2011-08-15 is that it's unambiguous. Nobody uses 
year-day-month anywhere; while many scientists and engineers all over 
the world use yyyy-mm-dddd because it sorts in the proper sequence, even 
if treated as a string (as long as the separators don't change, and 
leading zeros aren't suppressed). If you see 11/8/2011 you're never 
going to be sure if it is 11 August or November 8 because you can't be 
sure whether the convention used is the European one (because you're in 
the Netherlands) or the Usonian one (because Firefox was built in 
California). Or if you report a bug seen in version 7.0a2 (11-08-2011), 
the guy in New York who's trying to fix the bug won't even know that 
you're using the dd-mm-yyyy convention — he wouldn't know it even if he 
knew you're a Dutchman, because he doesn't know that Dutchmen use a 
different convention than the USA do. Another unambiguous notation, BTW, 
is 11-Aug-2011, but it has the disadvantage of not being as easy to sort 
as 2011-08-11.


Best regards,
Tony.
-- 
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
160. You get in the elevator and double-click the button for the floor
      you want.