Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

On 08/20/2011 06:10 PM, Alex Faaborg wrote:

<snips throughout>

> -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)

I think you are overestimating the "technicality" of users who are 
reacting to the new version numbers. Non-technical users have, over 
years of non-technical computer use, learned that incrementing the large 
number means big changes, and incrementing the smaller numbers means 
successively smaller changes. My own non-technical user (a.k.a. Mom) 
somehow turned automatic updating off and declined to update to 5.0 
because she thought it would mean another major change to the UI. She's 
not "jaded," she simply has certain expectations that were learned over 
time and have been proven true in most other cases.

> -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

Perhaps they will. You can get around this by bumping the version number 
on all platforms, or with an explanatory note or link in the About 
window. Or you can manage the press better by linking version numbers 
with operating systems in your public statements. "Firefox for Mac 7.0.1 
has been released," "Firefox 7.0.2 for Windows is the latest and 
greatest ... The current version of Firefox for MacOS and Linux remains 
7.0.1," etc. Get people to reflexively think of the OS when they think 
of the brand. You are half way there on the firefox.com download buttons 
already.

Removing the version number entirely would remove the source of 
confusion, but it would also leave users ignorant of what software they 
are actually running. I have seen enough strangeness from online 
updaters that I do not entirely trust them. They are too slow, or they 
can't connect, or I am in a rural area and don't want them to connect, 
or the update hasn't propagated to the right server, etc. I would rather 
be confused and educate myself than be uninformed and make a mistake. (I 
know about troubleshooting, but that has its own usability issues.)

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

Firefox _is_ software, and your users expect to encounter certain 
conventions of software when using it. Breaking convention is what 
causes confusion, not following it.

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

Version numbers are no more jargon than book editions or automobile 
model years. If you had never seen a book or a car, you might be 
confused by your first exposure to an edition number or model year. But 
a person of normal intelligence will figure it out, and what was jargon 
becomes a natural part of the language. The old version number system 
has been around long enough that it is a part of the language.

Now, if we were to define jargon as "technical language that a person of 
average intelligence cannot understand, standardized by and to serve the 
purposes of a small community," I would say the new version number 
system is jargon. It replaces the standard usage of version numbers, it 
exists to facilitate rapid releases and "further progress on the web," 
and it has engendered a fair bit of misunderstanding among the general 
populace. People will figure it out eventually, but right now it's 
jargon, something only sufficiently technical users really understand.

> We refer to the versions as "the fourth release of 2012" as a long form in
> some public statements, instead of 2012.4, to further de-jargonify it and
> make it human readable, but they are otherwise the same thing.

I have no objection to any de-jargonifying jargon you wish to introduce 
in public statements. :) I imagine it'll all devolve into a series of 
numbers and letters in discussion anyway, something like 2012R4p2. Then 
you'll have de facto version numbers to contend with all over the 
blogosphere and commentariat. They may even diverge from Firefox's 
internal version number. Personally, I find the mixture of words and 
numbers difficult to parse and prefer that my version numbers be 
numbers. But the success of SysVR4 and Win2k SP4 show that mixing words 
and numbers works, too.

I also imagine regular users being confused by "human readable" public 
statements. It's built on the premise that regular users know what 
releases and patches are; in particular, what your definitions of 
release and patch are. Some users may think patches are only meant to be 
installed to fix specific issues (like a tire patch, you don't apply it 
until your tire is punctured). They might think patches will be 
available for old releases, and so decline to upgrade to the next major 
release. Perhaps it would be best to stick with the tried and true 
"version," to show the users that everything is going in a straight line.

> == Why so much emotion? ==

It seems Mozilla recognizes only two types of users. The jaded and the 
confused. Mozilla has been dismissing the "power users" as a jaded, 
geeky, negligible minority, with corporate/academic/government IT 
getting the brunt of it. (Although at times, it seemed anyone curious 
about their version number was also a power user.) The only alternative 
offered to the power user label is the example of the guy who got 
confused over 5.0->5.0.1. Either you're so smart you don't matter, or 
you're so confused Mozilla must take away the version numbers before you 
hurt yourself. Very little attention has been paid to the users of 
average intelligence and computer experience. Although I think we were 
called "the mob" on Bugzilla. When you toss around labels like that, you 
can expect a little pushback.

There's also a little emotion over Mozilla trying to take control of our 
computers. "Users who aren't current will simply be made current," as 
opposed to "will be offered an update," or even, "will face an endless 
nightmare of annoying nag screens until they update." And then there 
was, "Users cannot sit on Firefox 4.x." Who are you guys to tell me what 
I can and cannot do on my computer? I'll be happy to rent some hard 
drive space to you, but until then I can and will run the software I 
want. I'll even sit on it, if I can find a way to install Firefox 4.x on 
my chair.

> Ironically removing the version number wasn't
> even the central point of the bug (which was primarily about further
> streamlining the process of checking for updates).

Oh, you were doing it ironically, that makes everything fine :P

The subject of the bug was "Remove version from About window." The 
reporter of the bug said it was "part of the phasing out of version 
numbers in Firefox." He also said, "the current [update availability] 
checking behavior does not need to change." The only change to updating 
was the addition of the time since the last update. No change to the 
actual process of checking for updates. I think it's fair to say 
removing the version number was, if not the central point of the bug, at 
least one of the poles.

-- 
C