Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

>
> Who are you guys to tell me what I can and cannot do on my computer?
>

Users will still be able to disable automatic updates, and then receive a
notification when one is available.  Also, this notification will also be
designed to be considerably less annoying than a modal dialog box: home tab
glowing with a snippet on the page mentioning the update.  In terms of the
decision to default to automatic updates: currently mainstream users are
frustrated with Firefox regularly asking them a leading question about if
they would like the latest security update (to which the answer is of course
yes).  That's why it is the default behavior, the majority of Firefox users
prefer it.

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

ironic in the sense that usually when we create this much controversy we at
least see it coming (tabs on top, status bar, rss).  The proposal to remove
the version number was an additional and entirely peripheral change to the
overall goal of streamlining the dialog box.  I personally didn't even know
we were discussing it, so my reaction to seeing the spike of traffic in both
bugmail and this forum was essentially "wait, what?"

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.
>

right, but the usability issue being addressed was if users can easily
determine if they are up to date or not.  By bug I mean the issue, the
process we were working on improving (automatically checking, telling the
user they are up to date, etc.)  The literal bug, in terms of discussion and
summary, was indeed largely focused on the version number.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a lovely weekend, depending on your local
timezone.

-Alex





On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> ______________________________**_________________
> dev-usability mailing list
> [email protected].**org <[email protected]>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-usability<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-usability>
>