Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

On Aug 21, 4:25 am, Reuben Morais <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?

I'd listen to the feedback very, very carefully, because my livelihood
depends on user satisfaction. Obviously Mozilla answers to no-one,
being this meritocratic and "we ignore you all" monolithic (or was it
meritocratic?) organization which requires due process and proper
protocol for every single thing, just to be filed to /dev/null :D

No, seriously - you behave as if I'm in some way obligated to say Good
Things about something, that cannot even in nicest of ways be
attributed to be as such. I'd be lying to myself and I'd be lying to
you.

> 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.

I'm sorry, but I cannot do that in good conscience. End-users indicate
they don't want Firefox 4+ experience, and they just want their old
browser back and "none of this nonsense". I actually hand-crafted one
Firefox 5 installation to look and behave as much like 3.6 series as
possible, but end-user rejected this in less than a week. Demanded to
go back to 3.6, just because 5.0 was consuming so huge quantities of
memory and cpu ("the worst browsing experience ever. constant lag.",
as he'd describe it). As for suggested workarounds, Add-on
Compatibility Reporter is a KLUDGE, it's like leaving a loaded gun in
the hands of a child. There are no promises or guarantees about
future, since plugins have essentially been forced to work on a
version they were never intended for. Any snags, and user is
essentially out there in the sea without a paddle. I don't wish them
bad things, so I refuse to do what I suggest. Just stop deluding
yourself, OK? All this "progress" is actually backwards progress,
you're on the wrong track but just don't realize it yet. But I suppose
every organization needs their New Coke / NetBurst (Pentium 4) moment.
In both of those cases they realized the error of their ways and went
back to the Good Old Thing. Or how would you see this as progress:
things are getting more convoluted, and you try to deprive us of any
last remaining control/knowledge we have over the situation? More
facts = better. Less facts = deliberately keeping user in the dark.

> > 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?

I thought you believed in educating users?

> >> 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.

Can I also change the behavior of mozdevs, so to have a real choice?
The way I see it, I can choose not to upgrade or go with the flow and
swallow a lot of s**t in the process.