Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Petter Andersson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Saying the Firefox team spends its time "scrambling things around" is
attacking them directly, don't undervalue people's knowledge and
experience.
How would you feel if someone made the same assertion to e.g. a web
site you maintain?

And if you as a "someone who knows better" just go to your friend's
house and install 3.6 on his machine you should know much better. I've
successfully convinced people to update to 4 when it was released, by
giving them a quick overview of the new UI/features when they felt
uncomfortable with it, and every time people asked for my help which
stopped working on 4 were just being blocked by the max supported
version and installing Add-on Compatibility Reporter solved the
problem. Of course I also told them what the compatibility reporter
was about and how they could help the makers of their favorite add-ons
fix any compatibility problems by reporting them.

>> -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.
>

???

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

Does she really? When talking about different Firefox versions in the
past I've seen numerous people who are confused by the small numbers -
they don't really know the difference between a minor (3.6.13 ->
3.6.14) and a major (3.5 -> 3.6) update, and what they should expect
from it. Should they even be thinking about those confusing things,
consuming the time they could be spending being productive?

>
>> 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...
>

That's the problem we're solving with the Add-on SDK - making it
easier for add-ons to be compatible with future versions of Firefox.

>
>> 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.
>

You can change the update behavior on Preferences > Advanced > Update.

--
Reuben