> Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About > Dialog.
> This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
I have been using the trunk builds for over a decade, and I couldn't find the "Check for Updates" function. I looked in several places (incl. the new and old Menus), but would never have thought to look in the Help About dialog...
Please put "Check for Updates" *directly* in the sub-menu of either "Help", "Options", or "Developer". Thank you.
PS. The recent "Minefield" menus are now sufficiently usable to me (with the above change). I like them much better now. :-)
PPS. I do think the *Page Title* should be shown in the Window Title Bar! -- Regards,
> On Fri. 17.09.2010 5:32, Biju wrote: >> Alex/UI team...
>> Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About >> Dialog.
>> This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
> I have been using the trunk builds for over a decade, and I couldn't > find the "Check for Updates" function. I looked in several places (incl. > the new and old Menus), but would never have thought to look in the Help > About dialog...
> Please put "Check for Updates" *directly* in the sub-menu of either > "Help", "Options", or "Developer". Thank you.
> PS. The recent "Minefield" menus are now sufficiently usable to me (with > the above change). I like them much better now. :-)
> PPS. I do think the *Page Title* should be shown in the Window Title Bar!
I agree that moving the 'check for updates' to the 'about' dialog was a bad move, but trying to convince certain people of that is about as effective as trying to convince them that they shouldn't eliminate the status bar. In short, about like the proverbial snow flake in hell. Sigh.
> Update firefox menu item for Firefox menu, is currently at About > Dialog.
> This is not easily discoverable... We need it in Help Submenu...
I don't think this is an issue for final-release builds. Firefox updates itself, the updates are fairly infrequent, and I'd be surprised if people on these builds were using that menu very much.
It is a bit of a pain for nightly builds, though, since updates are daily, and the update mechanism doesn't seem to check very aggressively relative to that.
Actually, I wonder if we should just change that -- make nightlies check hourly and immediately after startup. But in the meantime, it would seem reasonable to add a menuitem for nightlies-only. [Although I dislike wandering from the test-as-you-ship / ship-as-you-test path.]
> Actually, I wonder if we should just change that -- make nightlies check > hourly and immediately after startup. But in the meantime, it would seem > reasonable to add a menuitem for nightlies-only. [Although I dislike > wandering from the test-as-you-ship / ship-as-you-test path.]
On Sep 20, 2:33 pm, Mike Beltzner <beltz...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/2010 3:02 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> > Actually, I wonder if we should just change that -- make nightlies check > > hourly and immediately after startup. But in the meantime, it would seem > > reasonable to add a menuitem for nightlies-only. [Although I dislike > > wandering from the test-as-you-ship / ship-as-you-test path.]
On Sep 17, 4:53 am, Peter Lairo <Pe...@Lairo.com> wrote:
> PPS. I do think the *Page Title* should be shown in the Window Title Bar!
That's a bit against HTML spec that states: "The TITLE element is not considered part of the flow of text. *It should be displayed, for example as the page header or window title*. Exactly one title is required per document." http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#h-7.4.2
On Sep 20, 3:33 pm, Mike Beltzner <beltz...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/2010 3:02 PM, Justin Dolske wrote:
> > Actually, I wonder if we should just change that -- make nightlies check > > hourly and immediately after startup. But in the meantime, it would seem > > reasonable to add a menuitem for nightlies-only. [Although I dislike > > wandering from the test-as-you-ship / ship-as-you-test path.]
> Sounds like a job for Nightly Tester Tools!
> cheers, > mike
Mike,
Alternate suggestion make "Update firefox" as hidden menu item on Firefox menu. And let nightly testers set their userChrome.css to make it visible.
On Sep 27, 11:24 am, Biju <bijumaill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 20, 3:33 pm, Mike Beltzner <beltz...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Alternate suggestion make "Update firefox" as hidden menu item on > Firefox menu. > And let nightly testers set their userChrome.css to make it visible.
For God's sake, its a computer program. And a dynamic one at that. Let it just check if its a beta or not, and if automatic updates are disabled, then make tools>update or whatever the item is, visible. Some about:config option can also be nice to make it always off (0) , automatic (1), always show (2). What say?
Mike Beltzner wrote: > On 2010-09-27, at 2:24 AM, Biju wrote:
>> Alternate suggestion make "Update firefox" as hidden menu item on >> Firefox menu. >> And let nightly testers set their userChrome.css to make it visible.
> Sure, as long as there's no performance impact. It really does feel like an easy thing for a JetPack based Add-On to do, though, doesn't it?
> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without intervention, as quickly as possible.
> cheers, > mike
I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
> Mike Beltzner wrote: >> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on >> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more >> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. >> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>> cheers, >> mike
> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be > unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security > conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, > perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update system has said that users will have "no control of the update process."
Asa Dotzler wrote: > On 9/27/2010 7:38 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: >> Mike Beltzner wrote: >>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on >>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more >>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. >>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>> cheers, >>> mike
>> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be >> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security >> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, >> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
> Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already > thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and > user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this > project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update system > has said that users will have "no control of the update process."
> - A
Reading the original post, it sure sounds that way to me.
====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
> Asa Dotzler wrote: >> On 9/27/2010 7:38 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: >>> Mike Beltzner wrote: >>>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on >>>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more >>>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. >>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>>> cheers, >>>> mike
>>> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be >>> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security >>> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, >>> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
>> Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already >> thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and >> user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this >> project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update >> system has said that users will have "no control of the update process."
>> - A
> Reading the original post, it sure sounds that way to me.
> ====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without > >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
I'm confused. Where in that statement do you find the words "and users will have no control over the setting" ?
Asa Dotzler wrote: > On 9/27/2010 4:55 PM, Ron Hunter wrote: >> Asa Dotzler wrote: >>> On 9/27/2010 7:38 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: >>>> Mike Beltzner wrote: >>>>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on >>>>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates more >>>>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. >>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>>>> cheers, >>>>> mike
>>>> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be >>>> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security >>>> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, >>>> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
>>> Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already >>> thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and >>> user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this >>> project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update >>> system has said that users will have "no control of the update process."
>>> - A
>> Reading the original post, it sure sounds that way to me.
>> ====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen >> without >> >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
> I'm confused. Where in that statement do you find the words "and users > will have no control over the setting" ?
> - A
>>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
> Asa Dotzler wrote: >> On 9/27/2010 4:55 PM, Ron Hunter wrote: >>> Asa Dotzler wrote: >>>> On 9/27/2010 7:38 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: >>>>> Mike Beltzner wrote: >>>>>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on >>>>>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates >>>>>> more >>>>>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. >>>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen >>>>>> without >>>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>> mike
>>>>> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be >>>>> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security >>>>> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, >>>>> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
>>>> Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already >>>> thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and >>>> user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this >>>> project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update >>>> system has said that users will have "no control of the update >>>> process."
>>>> - A
>>> Reading the original post, it sure sounds that way to me.
>>> ====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen >>> without >>> >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>> I'm confused. Where in that statement do you find the words "and users >> will have no control over the setting" ?
>> - A
> >>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen > without > >>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
> What does that say?
I've read it and it does not say "and users will have no control over this."
Are you really not getting this? Do you really believe that without your vigilance we're going to start forcing software on peoples computers without giving them the opportunity to opt out? What in our record makes you believe that we think users should have no control about what software is installed on their systems? Did you miss the whole Apple Updater ruckus where none other than Mozilla's CEO called Apple out for the behavior you're basically accusing us of pursuing? Is it just your default stance to assume the worst of the people building Firefox?
> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without > intervention, as quickly as possible.
...and we can meet that goal without taking away users' control or transparency, for example by requiring them to opt in to automatic updates the first time ("check this box to always install updates"), notifying them in an unobtrusive way when updates are applied, and letting them opt out again at any time. I'm sure you can think of other ways that fast, easy updates might be reconciled with user control.
Matt Brubeck wrote: >> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen without >> intervention, as quickly as possible.
> ...and we can meet that goal without taking away users' control or > transparency, for example by requiring them to opt in to automatic > updates the first time ("check this box to always install updates"), > notifying them in an unobtrusive way when updates are applied, and > letting them opt out again at any time. I'm sure you can think of > other ways that fast, easy updates might be reconciled with user > control.
Good, but the implication is clearly an intent to do updates without 'user intervention'. Sounds like lack of user control to me. Thanks for clearing up the intent.
Asa Dotzler wrote: > On 9/27/2010 5:32 PM, Ron Hunter wrote: >> Asa Dotzler wrote: >>> On 9/27/2010 4:55 PM, Ron Hunter wrote: >>>> Asa Dotzler wrote: >>>>> On 9/27/2010 7:38 AM, Ron Hunter wrote: >>>>>> Mike Beltzner wrote: >>>>>>> Honestly, I prefer the idea of having NTT dynamically enabled on >>>>>>> nightly channels. FWIW, nightly channels already poke for updates >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> frequently than others, so there's existing disparity there. >>>>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen >>>>>>> without >>>>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>>>>>> cheers, >>>>>>> mike
>>>>>> I am sure that not having any control of the update process would be >>>>>> unacceptable to many power users, and not a few of the more security >>>>>> conscious of novice/intermediate users. Minor security updates, only, >>>>>> perhaps, but I am not a fan of automatic updating.
>>>>> Ron, I very much suspect that Mike, and everyone else here are already >>>>> thinking about the implications of balancing more seamless updates and >>>>> user control. Additionally, no one, ever, in the history of this >>>>> project, certainly in any of the recent discussions of the update >>>>> system has said that users will have "no control of the update >>>>> process."
>>>>> - A
>>>> Reading the original post, it sure sounds that way to me.
>>>> ====Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen >>>> without >>>> >>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>>> I'm confused. Where in that statement do you find the words "and users >>> will have no control over the setting" ?
>>> - A
>> >>>>> Ultimately the goal, of course, is to just have updates happen >> without >> >>>>> intervention, as quickly as possible.
>> What does that say?
> I've read it and it does not say "and users will have no control over > this."
> Are you really not getting this? Do you really believe that without your > vigilance we're going to start forcing software on peoples computers > without giving them the opportunity to opt out? What in our record makes > you believe that we think users should have no control about what > software is installed on their systems? Did you miss the whole Apple > Updater ruckus where none other than Mozilla's CEO called Apple out for > the behavior you're basically accusing us of pursuing? Is it just your > default stance to assume the worst of the people building Firefox?
> I feel like I'm being trolled.
> - A
No intention of being a troll. The wording seemed to me to imply that the eventual intent was to do updates without the user being aware, or consulted. Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding.
