Re: Removing Firefox Version Number

Isaac Stitz wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:46 pm, Asa Dotzler<[email protected]>  wrote:
>> Isaac Stitz wrote:
>>> I bet a vast majority of those users don't take advantage of FF's
>>> feature to block third-party cookies either.  So clearly it should be
>>> removed and relegated to an add-on, right?  Same goes for the new anti-
>>> tracking and FF Sync functions.
>> Isaac, that argument doesn't take into account how our mission pushes us
>> to help users learn about and take advantage of those features. Our
>> mission does not ask us to help users understand software version
>> numbers. Not all features or software capabilities are equal.
>>
>> It seems like arguments like this are just about winning, even at the
>> expense of progress and understanding. Can we not do that?
>
> Is it your mission to confuse users who *do* want to know what version
> they're using?  (Actually it kinda seems like it is.)

If you really believe the goal of the UX team and the Firefox Product 
team are trying to confuse users, then we probably aren't going to have 
much to talk about here.

>>> I'll make you a deal:  I'll refrain from "personal attacks" (really
>>> just criticizing your attitude) if you refrain from personal ego
>>> inflation by telling everyone what super talented experts you are.
>> This is not my ego. This is how Mozilla operates. People with talent and
>> skill and persistence rise to positions of authority within Mozilla.
>> They become the decision makers. There is nothing wrong in saying that.
>
> Actually there is:  It's condescending and undiplomatic.  I serve
> administrative positions in a few different online communities.  I
> make a sincere effort to convey that I don't consider myself more
> qualified than the users I serve, and that I'm willing to listen when
> users are concerned about something I'm doing, and that I'm even
> willing to reverse my decisions when a user points out a flaw in my
> actions.  It's more work than just doing what I want, but it breeds a
> sense of good faith and cooperation that seems to put even belligerent
> users at ease.

I encourage you to read some of the links to the Mozilla governance and 
process documents. I've tried to say it diplomatically, but you seem to 
not want to hear that. Not all Mozilla contributors are equally 
qualified in all areas of Mozilla. It's really that simple. You and I 
are not qualified to make changes to the cookie handling code in 
Firefox. You and I are only somewhat qualified to interpret user 
research data, but not as qualified as the User Research team. You and I 
are probably mostly qualified to identify bugs in Firefox and report 
those to the development team.

All of us are not equally qualified to design Firefox or to make 
decisions about how Firefox should best serve users and the Mozilla 
Mission.

We are not all equally qualified at all tasks in this project. There's 
no value in pretending that we are.

This is not Wikipedia where anyone can edit any entry. In the Mozilla 
produce, people earn their responsibility and their authority by 
demonstrating good works over time. And not even all of the people who 
have earned responsibilities are equal. We have a hierarchical system of 
Modules where there are individuals who have the ultimate decision 
making authority precisely because they have demonstrated their 
abilities over time.

Again, and as I've said in just about every one of my posts here over 
the last few days, that does not mean that those qualified to make the 
decisions should not listen to feedback. But they are not required and 
should not be required to make decisions because "the community" 
demanded something. That's not how this project is organized.

That may be how other projects you are involved with are organized. And 
that might be fine for those projects. But Mozilla has a governance 
structure that's different. Feedback is an important part of our 
process, but it is not the only way we make decisions.

>>> Back on topic:  How does removing the version number from the About
>>> dialog empower users?
>> In the new rapid release system, users are always up to date or in the
>> process of updating. They no longer have to worry about whether or not
>> they've got the latest version and how and where to get it and install
>> it. But, we're not yet to a place where users have the confidence in
>> this new model and are going to all just assume that it's working and
>> that they are up to date.  So, we've created a feature, a simple update
>> check to help with that. When a user opens the about dialog (where they
>> have traditionally gone to find out what version they're on and if that
>> version matches the latest version being offered at the Website for
>> download and install) we do a quick ping of the Mozilla server and we
>> let the user know that "Hey there. I've just checked in with Mozilla and
>> you are indeed running the latest version so everything's great."
>
> And how will I know what features are associated with that version, or
> even when that version has changed without seeing the number?  Still
> wondering how the number's removal empowers users.

We are not designing for power users first. But, because we care about 
them (we're all power users too!) we've made Firefox very customizable 
so that power users can have the experience they want. If a power user 
is unsatisfied with Firefox's defaults, she can change the defaults, or 
find an add-on to give her a feature not offered by Firefox out of the box.

>> That's the message we want to convey. That's the use case we're
>> developing for. That does not require the version number and there are
>> cases where including the version number could actually lower the user's
>> confidence that they are on the latest version.
>
> And those cases are?

I've laid out these cases several times. Please find and read them. I 
assume you're going to think I'm trying to brush you off -- I'm not. 
I've already spent literally hours responding to your posts here (and 
the posts of a dozen other people) and I honestly don't have time to 
write the same response every time someone repeats a question.

>> There are a few other use cases we're also addressing. The next most
>> important one is troubleshooting. Users sometimes have problems with
>> Firefox and they call a friend or the help desk or they go to the web to
>> get help fixing Firefox. The first step in almost every troubleshooting
>> scenario back in the days of software getting out of date (something
>> that doesn't happen in the world we're designing for) is to ask the user
>> what version she is on, and then to check with Mozilla's website to make
>> sure that's the latest version and then to tell the user to update if
>> that's needed. As I said, that step shouldn't be needed going forward,
>> modulo bugs, and so the the person helping troubleshooting can move to
>> the next set of steps which often include questions about which
>> extensions and plug-ins are installed, whether hardware acceleration is
>> enabled, which preferences have been set or not set, etc. We've created
>> a really amazing resource to help the troubleshooters in this use case.
>> It's a page called Troubleshooting Information and it's located on the
>> Help menu.
>
> I don't think anyone here has anything against exhaustive information
> being displayed on the troubleshooting page.  But the troubleshooting
> page isn't the topic of this discussion; the About dialog is.

This discussion is about the version number. One of the common use cases 
cited here for having the version number in the About dialog is that 
users go there when they're troubleshooting Firefox. We considered that 
when proposing this change and we think that for troubleshooting, the 
Help->Troubleshooting page is a better solution than the Help->About page.

>> But to give a more direct answer to your question, Firefox's versioning
>> and updating system are designed to empower users by keeping them safe
>> and secure on the Web and by delivering them the rest of Firefox
>> features which help put them more in control of their online lives.
>> Making that system more effective helps empower users.
>
> How does omitting the version number make that system more effective?

It makes that system easier to use and understand and that makes it more 
effective.

>>> Yes, I know we'll be able to see that we have the latest release --
>>> Which is?  Let's say I'm a user and I know that FF version X is going
>>> to have some killer feature that I really want to learn and use.
>> If that feature has shipped, then you'll have it. If that feature has
>> not shipped then you won't have it. If you know it's shipped and you
>> can't see the feature, then you'll want to find the documentation that
>> tells you how to find and use it.
>
> And how will I know *when* I have access to the feature?  Under the
> current behavior, the About dialog will clearly show when a version
> has changed.  Under the behavior you're proposing, it won't matter if
> I was updated a month ago or thirty seconds ago; it will provide the
> same vague "You are up-to-date" message.

This is getting repetitive. I've tried to answer this about 5 times. 
Please read my posts again and if you have questions about the answer I 
provided, please follow up there. Thanks.

>>> However, I have no clue when that release is going to be pushed out to
>>> me.  Is it already installed?  Is Mozilla releasing it a little later
>>> in the day?  Did they hit a snag and hold back the release for a
>>> week?  For me, this would just be an inconvenience.  For users who
>>> don't know where the version number has been hidden, I can see it
>>> being a major source of frustration.  But who does it help?
>> I think you're trying to solve a problem for a very small number of
>> users that is already solved by having the version number in the
>> Troubleshooting window.
>
> Ironic, since I think you're trying to solve a problem for a very
> small number of users that is already solved by having the "Firefox is
> up to date" message in the About dialog.  The difference is that
> you're proposed change is upsetting a not-so-small number of users.

The problem is not solved well for the users who want to know if they're 
up to date. That's the use case we're optimizing for and we think we can 
make it better. "Solved" and "Solved as well as we can solve it" are not 
the same thing. T

>>> It sounds like users are going to see a lot of disabled add-ons and
>>> wonder why they're disabled.  Especially the users who allegedly get
>>> confused by version numbers.
>> Firefox will tell a user if the add-on she has already installed is
>> disabled by an update. If I'm able to get the feature added, that user
>> will even be able to turn the add-on back on to experiment with it and
>> see if "enough" of it works for her.
>>
>>> I'm not an expert like you guys, but I don't have a hard time
>>> envisioning User Bob saying:  "Huh?  It says, 'Not available for
>>> Firefox 6.0'.  Is that what I'm using?  I can't find my version
>>   >  number anywhere."
>>
>> Add-ons won't say "not available for Firefox 6.0" they'll allow you to
>> install them if they're compatible and they won't if they're not. The
>> various places where add-ons are found by the vast majority of users
>> (addons.mozilla.org and within the Firefox add-ons manager) "just work"
>> in that they don't ask users to think about versions.  The ones that are
>> compatible will be available and the ones that are not won't.
>
> So the user will have no obvious way to even know if the add-on is
> disabled because it only works for a future version or older version
> of FF.  That's even more confusing.  Developer Bob writes an add-on
> for FF15+ (in Aurora) but the user has FF13.  The user has no clue
> what version he's using or what version the extension supports.

Users won't have Firefox 13 when Firefox 15 has shipped. They'll all 
have Firefox 15 when Firefox 15 has shipped. This is fundamental to the 
rapid release process. I thought you said you understood that process. 
Let me restate this key thing just in case you forgot. There are no 
older versions of Firefox for our mainstream users. There is only the 
current version.

>>> In the above case you did not *remove* the standard behavior; you
>>> *supplemented* it.  Users are still free to have as many FF windows
>>> open as they like.
>> Yes. That is currently the case. We replaced it for the users who use
>> one window and we supplemented it for the users who use multiple
>> windows. Whether or not that will remain true is up for debate. There
>> was a time a while back when lots of users were demanding that Firefox
>> move to a "single window mode" where there could not be more than one
>> Mozilla window and all activity happened in tabs. I wasn't a fan of that
>> idea, but with features like Panorama and full-screen mode, you can
>> start to see where there are already cases in which it makes a lot of
>> sense.
>
> I'll save you some pain and tell you that removing multi-window
> support is a bad idea.  Users generally don't like it when you take
> away something that they use.  An *option* that *allows* users to
> force a single-window mode would be just fine.

Hey, guess what. We agree on multi-window support..

And yes, users generally do not like it when you take away something 
they use but if you are replacing that thing with something better, 
users are often happier in the end.

The old (but probably not true) yarn about Henry Ford is applicable 
here. He was supposed to have said "If I'd have asked people what they 
wanted, they'd have asked for faster horses."

With software, we often cannot carry the technical debt of only adding 
new features and never removing old ones. Also, users do not enjoy and 
do not get some most important benefits of an application if that 
application grows and grows to include all possible features and all 
possible options for those features.

So, like most things in life, it's about trade-offs.

>>> Hiding the version number does not make the dialog's message more
>>> credible.  It makes it seem like it's... hiding something.
>> We disagree. Here's a case where the message becomes less credible if
>> you have both the up to date communication and a version number. Pretend
>> that we shipped a version of Firefox 5 called Firefox 5.0.1 just to fix
>> a bug that affected Mac users. Now pretend that the Web filled up with
>> reports that the latest version of Firefox was 5.0.1. Now pretend that
>> you're a Windows Firefox user and you've just heard that Firefox 5.0.1
>> is the latest release so you open your About window and Firefox says
>> "Hi, I've just checked with Mozilla and you are absolutely positively up
>> to date. You've got the latest and greatest that Mozilla has to offer
>> you" and underneath that it says "Firefox 5.0"
>>
>> Now, for most people looking at that, one of the three pieces of
>> information she has must be untrue. Either 5.0.1 is not the latest
>> release as she's been assured by all her friends on Twitter and
>> elsewhere on the Web.  Or, Firefox has lied and it is not actually up to
>> date with the latest version of Firefox. Or the version Firefox has told
>> her she's using is wrong.
>>
>> What's a user to do? Which of those three pieces of information is most
>> credible?
>>
>> No, you can stop pretending for a minute because this isn't a thought
>> experiment. This is what happened.
>
> Thank you for finally providing a use case.  Solution:  If version
> 5.0.1 is just a Mac-specific bug fix and FF 5.0 on Windows is
> identical to FF 5.0.1 on Windows, then tell FF this when it checks for
> an update and have it increment the number accordingly.  Users on Mac
> will get an update and see that they have version 5.0.1.  Users on
> Windows will get a message when they ping, informing them that 5.0.1
> is identical to 5.0 when built for Windows, and will promote its
> number to 5.0.1.  Is it a little trickier than just chopping the
> version number out of the About dialog?  Yes.  But it would please
> both camps and show that Mozilla does in fact listen to users'
> concerns.

That's an interesting suggestion and one I hadn't heard yet. Thanks for 
offering it. That could possibly solve some of the problem. It would be 
a lie in some cases, and it's a lot of information to add to the dialog 
that may make the critical message less digestible for those who need 
it, but sometimes inconsequential lies are OK and sometimes more 
information can be made to work. Worth discussing further for sure.

>>>> I've offered the best answers I can. I think I've given far more than "a
>>>> token explanation" here and elsewhere in this forum. Also, I don't think
>>>> anyone at Mozilla thinks of our Firefox users as peasants. I think we
>>>> all try very hard to put our process and our work into the public and to
>>>> listen and respond to as much feedback and criticism as we can. I think
>>>> Mozilla does this better than most other software projects and it's one
>>>> of the reasons I've been contributing to Mozilla for the last 13 years.
>>> The best answer you can offer is the one that pleases the most users
>>> while displeasing the fewest.  This change has not even been released
>>> yet, and thousands of your users spread across various communities are
>>> up in arms.  Before this, were there thousands of users up in arms
>>> about the version number being in the box?
>> We are generally not trying to optimize to prevent criticism and
>> feedback from people who follow Firefox development closely. We are
>> trying to optimize for the hundreds of millions of users who depend on
>> Firefox to help them live their lives on the Web.
>>
>> Most of the time we can do both.
>
> This time you can too.  See above.

Possibly. Worth thinking through.

>> I'll just add, that even if we just dropped this idea today, the next
>> feature that has anything to do with Firefox changing to better support
>> this rapid release model, could just as easily turn into the same kind
>> of pitchfork rally.
>
> It's been my observation that these pitchfork rallies can be minimized
> by stating rationale upfront and listening to concerns.  That has not
> been done here; we're several pages into discussion and only now are
> we starting to hear the real reason why you're pushing for this
> change.  Now that we have, maybe we can offer a solution that will
> please more people.

You didn't read my answers to other people. I've said this here and in 
other forums on the web and elsewhere in this newsgroup.

- A