Re: Version numbers and an update from the UX team

>
> if the major number is year, I think
> it's confusing to make the minor number an ordinal instead of making
> it the month.
>

yes, it definitely needs to be entirely time based if we go for that
approach.

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Henri Sivonen <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> dev-usability mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-usability
>