Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

On Aug 21, 1:10 am, Alex Faaborg <[email protected]> wrote:

> -Some technical users are reacting in a jaded way to large version bumps
> like 5, 6 and 7 because it took us several years for both 3 or 4, the sudden
> change in interval comes off as cheating even though that wasn't the
> intention (just need to get changes out faster to further progress on the
> Web)

Fact of the matter is, most post-3.6 changes just scramble around the
UI and render plugins non-functional. End-user (typically a friend or
relative) is wondering what is happening and calls in panic to someone
who knows better, to please come and unf**k this nonsense. So, since
there's no guarantees about Rapid Release lineage, most common
solution is to revert to latest version of 3.6 series and DISABLE
automatic updates. Next update will take place, hmm, maybe during
christmas holidays.

> -If a user reads that 7.0.1 was released and they don't see this in the
> dialog box, they will be confused if we claim 7.0 is the most up to date
> version

Please. That's just underestimating anyone who winds up to Help|About.

> -Multiple decimal places in version numbers is silly, and is pretty much
> only encountered in the realm of software

No, majorversion.minorversion.revision numbering is Universal Standard
by now. And: this *is* software we're talking about. What did you
think Firefox is, if not software? :)

> -Version numbers are generally speaking technical jargon, and user
> experience designers generally speaking like to try to remove instances of
> jargon

Even my grandmother understands the majorversion.minorversion.revision
concept. See above. Enough said.

> -Some technical users really want to see the version number in an easy way
> for legitimate reasons (web developers, extension developers, IT, etc.)
> these people are a minority, but like the people who need to access view
> source or developer tools, they are also important. Since they are building
> stuff you could even argue that they are very disproportionately important

Since this stuff is mostly on their shoulders, they are - by
definition - very disproportionately important in any case...

> -Under the current model we are headed towards version 47, and that is just
> going to sound silly in a world used to seeing small version numbers

That's so far the only thing we can agree about. v47 does sound silly,
yes. In fact, huge version number (a'la Chrome) is a certified way to
be a laughing stock of a kind. I mean, who _hasn't_ cracked a Chrome
version number joke or two by now?

> Format is 2011.1, 2011.2, etc. We refer to point releases simply as "a patch
> to 2011.7", and we avoid press statements that include multiple decimal
> places to limit all around user confusion.

Someone tell that to 3rd party plugins and ever-changing APIs and
evolving UIs and whatnot... Sorry, I'm only compliant between releases
2011.11 and 2012.02. Problem? Damn. And I'm with 2013.03. So close but
so far away...

> I think the reason this debate became so emotional is that some people want
> to change client side software to behave like the Web (where the user has no
> control over version), and some people simply aren't comfortable with that
> model. The existence of version numbers is functionally kind of peripheral

That's right. Some people -> most, if not all people. There, I fixed
it for you. Truth of the matter is, you do not own our computers. Web
server you can own (or lease/rent), and do pretty much what you want
in that end. But we choose what we install and run on our computers,
not you.