Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

Alex Faaborg wrote:
> -Making the about window primarily designed to achieve the task of checking
> "am I up to date" is great
...
> 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.

I think that's not quite it.

On Windows, Mac and Gnome, the primary purpose of the about box is to
answer the question "What am I running?" by giving the product name
and the version number. (The secondary purpose is to answer "Who owns
the copyright to this piece of software?") It's highly unusual for the
about box to answer the question "Is what I am running up to date?"
The only apps that I could find whose about boxes answer that question
are Firefox and Chrome. Most non-App Store Mac apps that I checked
have a separate "Check for Updates" menu item in the app menu that
answers the question "Is what I am running up to date?"

It might be that it would make sense for the about box to answer the
question "Is what I am running up to date?", but looking at what the
tradition is, it not the primary purpose of about boxes and it is
highly unusual to answer that question there.

I think the emotion comes from this:

Not putting the version number in the about box (or, rather,
*removing* it) means refusing to answer the question "What am I
running?" which is the question that the about box traditionally
answers. This raises the question why Mozilla would refuse to answer
that question. The two most obvious guesses in the context of users
complaining about version numbers under the Rapid Release process are:
 1) Mozilla thinks the users can't handle the answer.
 2) Mozilla thinks the answer is embarrassing.

The first option is insulting to the user. The second option
undermines trust, because failing to disclose something that everyone
else discloses makes it look like there's something to hide.

> 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.

I think time-based version numbers make sense for software that has
time-based releases. However, if the major number is year, I think
it's confusing to make the minor number an ordinal instead of making
it the month.