Version numbers and an update from the UX team
Alex Faaborg
has commented in the ongoing discussion about version numbers over the past
4 days.
Sorry about that, half of the team is out on vacation, and the rest of us
were out at a user research offsite, so I'm just now getting a chance to
read all of this. You may have also noticed that no one from the UX team
commented in the bug itself, again also sorry about the delay.
== I personally believe the following things are true ==
-Making the about window primarily designed to achieve the task of checking
"am I up to date" is great
-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)
-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
-Multiple decimal places in version numbers is silly, and is pretty much
only encountered in the realm of software
-Version numbers are generally speaking technical jargon, and user
experience designers generally speaking like to try to remove instances of
jargon
-Some technical users really want to see the version number in an easy way
for legitimate reasons (web developers, extension developers, IT, etc.)
these people are a minority, but like the people who need to access view
source or developer tools, they are also important. Since they are building
stuff you could even argue that they are very disproportionately important
-Under the current model we are headed towards version 47, and that is just
going to sound silly in a world used to seeing small version numbers
== One possible proposed solution (also proposed by many other people
through many channels ==
We de-jargonify the version number, and make it time based.
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.
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.
Overall keeping the version number around in the about dialog doesn't really
diminish the work to make the dialog primarily about confirming that you are
running the newest version (or that you need to apply an update), and that
is from my perspective the larger UI win here.
== Why so much emotion? ==
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. The existence of version numbers is functionally kind of peripheral
to that debate, but nonetheless served as an effective lightning rod for a
growing storm of controversy. 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).
So that's a quick summary of what is on the UX team's mind.
On a more personal note, I think the way that Asa has been treated over the
past few days by a few members of the Mozilla community has been shockingly
inappropriate. Just because this is the internet and you are hiding behind
a screen a keyboard doesn't give one the moral justification to act in a
completely uncivilized manner. We love intellectual debate, but please
remember to attack things, and not people (note the follow up thread).
-Alex
Petter Andersson
> -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)
Fact of the matter is, most post-3.6 changes just scramble around the
UI and render plugins non-functional. End-user (typically a friend or
relative) is wondering what is happening and calls in panic to someone
who knows better, to please come and unf**k this nonsense. So, since
there's no guarantees about Rapid Release lineage, most common
solution is to revert to latest version of 3.6 series and DISABLE
automatic updates. Next update will take place, hmm, maybe during
christmas holidays.
> -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
Please. That's just underestimating anyone who winds up to Help|About.
> -Multiple decimal places in version numbers is silly, and is pretty much
> only encountered in the realm of software
No, majorversion.minorversion.revision numbering is Universal Standard
by now. And: this *is* software we're talking about. What did you
think Firefox is, if not software? :)
> -Version numbers are generally speaking technical jargon, and user
> experience designers generally speaking like to try to remove instances of
> jargon
Even my grandmother understands the majorversion.minorversion.revision
concept. See above. Enough said.
> -Some technical users really want to see the version number in an easy way
> for legitimate reasons (web developers, extension developers, IT, etc.)
> these people are a minority, but like the people who need to access view
> source or developer tools, they are also important. Since they are building
> stuff you could even argue that they are very disproportionately important
Since this stuff is mostly on their shoulders, they are - by
definition - very disproportionately important in any case...
> -Under the current model we are headed towards version 47, and that is just
> going to sound silly in a world used to seeing small version numbers
That's so far the only thing we can agree about. v47 does sound silly,
yes. In fact, huge version number (a'la Chrome) is a certified way to
be a laughing stock of a kind. I mean, who _hasn't_ cracked a Chrome
version number joke or two by now?
> 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.
Someone tell that to 3rd party plugins and ever-changing APIs and
evolving UIs and whatnot... Sorry, I'm only compliant between releases
2011.11 and 2012.02. Problem? Damn. And I'm with 2013.03. So close but
so far away...
> 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. The existence of version numbers is functionally kind of peripheral
That's right. Some people -> most, if not all people. There, I fixed
it for you. Truth of the matter is, you do not own our computers. Web
server you can own (or lease/rent), and do pretty much what you want
in that end. But we choose what we install and run on our computers,
not you.
Reuben Morais
<pander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Fact of the matter is, most post-3.6 changes just scramble around the
> UI and render plugins non-functional. End-user (typically a friend or
> relative) is wondering what is happening and calls in panic to someone
> who knows better, to please come and unf**k this nonsense. So, since
> there's no guarantees about Rapid Release lineage, most common
> solution is to revert to latest version of 3.6 series and DISABLE
> automatic updates. Next update will take place, hmm, maybe during
> christmas holidays.
>
Saying the Firefox team spends its time "scrambling things around" is
attacking them directly, don't undervalue people's knowledge and
experience.
How would you feel if someone made the same assertion to e.g. a web
site you maintain?
And if you as a "someone who knows better" just go to your friend's
house and install 3.6 on his machine you should know much better. I've
successfully convinced people to update to 4 when it was released, by
giving them a quick overview of the new UI/features when they felt
uncomfortable with it, and every time people asked for my help which
stopped working on 4 were just being blocked by the max supported
version and installing Add-on Compatibility Reporter solved the
problem. Of course I also told them what the compatibility reporter
was about and how they could help the makers of their favorite add-ons
fix any compatibility problems by reporting them.
>> -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
>
> Please. That's just underestimating anyone who winds up to Help|About.
>
???
>
> Even my grandmother understands the majorversion.minorversion.revision
> concept. See above. Enough said.
>
Does she really? When talking about different Firefox versions in the
past I've seen numerous people who are confused by the small numbers -
they don't really know the difference between a minor (3.6.13 ->
3.6.14) and a major (3.5 -> 3.6) update, and what they should expect
from it. Should they even be thinking about those confusing things,
consuming the time they could be spending being productive?
>
>> 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.
>
> Someone tell that to 3rd party plugins and ever-changing APIs and
> evolving UIs and whatnot... Sorry, I'm only compliant between releases
> 2011.11 and 2012.02. Problem? Damn. And I'm with 2013.03. So close but
> so far away...
>
That's the problem we're solving with the Add-on SDK - making it
easier for add-ons to be compatible with future versions of Firefox.
>
>> 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. The existence of version numbers is functionally kind of peripheral
>
> That's right. Some people -> most, if not all people. There, I fixed
> it for you. Truth of the matter is, you do not own our computers. Web
> server you can own (or lease/rent), and do pretty much what you want
> in that end. But we choose what we install and run on our computers,
> not you.
>
You can change the update behavior on Preferences > Advanced > Update.
--
Reuben
Reuben Morais
>
> and every time people asked for my help which
> stopped working on 4 were just being blocked by the max supported
> version and installing Add-on Compatibility Reporter solved the
> problem.
>
That should read "and every time people asked for my help with add-ons
that stopped working…", sorry.
--
Reuben
Petter Andersson
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Petter Andersson
>
>
> > Fact of the matter is, most post-3.6 changes just scramble around the
> > UI and render plugins non-functional. End-user (typically a friend or
> > relative) is wondering what is happening and calls in panic to someone
> > who knows better, to please come and unf**k this nonsense. So, since
> > there's no guarantees about Rapid Release lineage, most common
> > solution is to revert to latest version of 3.6 series and DISABLE
> > automatic updates. Next update will take place, hmm, maybe during
> > christmas holidays.
>
> Saying the Firefox team spends its time "scrambling things around" is
> attacking them directly, don't undervalue people's knowledge and
> experience.
> How would you feel if someone made the same assertion to e.g. a web
> site you maintain?
I'd listen to the feedback very, very carefully, because my livelihood
depends on user satisfaction. Obviously Mozilla answers to no-one,
being this meritocratic and "we ignore you all" monolithic (or was it
meritocratic?) organization which requires due process and proper
protocol for every single thing, just to be filed to /dev/null :D
No, seriously - you behave as if I'm in some way obligated to say Good
Things about something, that cannot even in nicest of ways be
attributed to be as such. I'd be lying to myself and I'd be lying to
you.
> And if you as a "someone who knows better" just go to your friend's
> house and install 3.6 on his machine you should know much better. I've
> successfully convinced people to update to 4 when it was released, by
> giving them a quick overview of the new UI/features when they felt
> uncomfortable with it, and every time people asked for my help which
> stopped working on 4 were just being blocked by the max supported
> version and installing Add-on Compatibility Reporter solved the
> problem. Of course I also told them what the compatibility reporter
> was about and how they could help the makers of their favorite add-ons
> fix any compatibility problems by reporting them.
I'm sorry, but I cannot do that in good conscience. End-users indicate
they don't want Firefox 4+ experience, and they just want their old
browser back and "none of this nonsense". I actually hand-crafted one
Firefox 5 installation to look and behave as much like 3.6 series as
possible, but end-user rejected this in less than a week. Demanded to
go back to 3.6, just because 5.0 was consuming so huge quantities of
memory and cpu ("the worst browsing experience ever. constant lag.",
as he'd describe it). As for suggested workarounds, Add-on
Compatibility Reporter is a KLUDGE, it's like leaving a loaded gun in
the hands of a child. There are no promises or guarantees about
future, since plugins have essentially been forced to work on a
version they were never intended for. Any snags, and user is
essentially out there in the sea without a paddle. I don't wish them
bad things, so I refuse to do what I suggest. Just stop deluding
yourself, OK? All this "progress" is actually backwards progress,
you're on the wrong track but just don't realize it yet. But I suppose
every organization needs their New Coke / NetBurst (Pentium 4) moment.
In both of those cases they realized the error of their ways and went
back to the Good Old Thing. Or how would you see this as progress:
things are getting more convoluted, and you try to deprive us of any
last remaining control/knowledge we have over the situation? More
facts = better. Less facts = deliberately keeping user in the dark.
> > Even my grandmother understands the majorversion.minorversion.revision
> > concept. See above. Enough said.
>
> Does she really? When talking about different Firefox versions in the
> past I've seen numerous people who are confused by the small numbers -
> they don't really know the difference between a minor (3.6.13 ->
> 3.6.14) and a major (3.5 -> 3.6) update, and what they should expect
> from it. Should they even be thinking about those confusing things,
> consuming the time they could be spending being productive?
I thought you believed in educating users?
> >> 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. The existence of version numbers is functionally kind of peripheral
>
> > That's right. Some people -> most, if not all people. There, I fixed
> > it for you. Truth of the matter is, you do not own our computers. Web
> > server you can own (or lease/rent), and do pretty much what you want
> > in that end. But we choose what we install and run on our computers,
> > not you.
>
> You can change the update behavior on Preferences > Advanced > Update.
Can I also change the behavior of mozdevs, so to have a real choice?
The way I see it, I can choose not to upgrade or go with the flow and
swallow a lot of s**t in the process.
Reuben Morais
<pander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, seriously - you behave as if I'm in some way obligated to say Good
> Things about something, that cannot even in nicest of ways be
> attributed to be as such. I'd be lying to myself and I'd be lying to
> you.
>
You're not obligated to do anything, just as the Firefox team is not
obligated to read your insulting rants.
>
> Or how would you see this as progress:
> things are getting more convoluted, and you try to deprive us of any
> last remaining control/knowledge we have over the situation? More
> facts = better. Less facts = deliberately keeping user in the dark.
>
No one is depriving you from control nor knowledge. You can still
configure the update system and you can still see the version number
in about:support.
>
>> Does she really? When talking about different Firefox versions in the
>> past I've seen numerous people who are confused by the small numbers -
>> they don't really know the difference between a minor (3.6.13 ->
>> 3.6.14) and a major (3.5 -> 3.6) update, and what they should expect
>> from it. Should they even be thinking about those confusing things,
>> consuming the time they could be spending being productive?
>
> I thought you believed in educating users?
>
Yes, like I said, I taught them how to use the features they care
about in the new version. Version numbers are the last thing they care
about.
--
Reuben
Petter Andersson
> Yes, like I said, I taught them how to use the features they care
> about in the new version. Version numbers are the last thing they care
> about.
You're right. So let's roll with that for a moment, shall we? 3.6
series user accidentally upgrades, despite cautions of his peers to
avoid newer versions like plague. He finds the browser stripped of any
kind of features, because he can no longer find what he needs, due to
"improvements". All comfort of features donated by 3rd party plugins
is gone as well (which is a Critical Failure for a browser which
always believed in 3rd party plugins to such degree, that "there's a
plugin for that" thinking became commonplace). Let me assure you, user
will very quickly home in on the root of his problems; i.e., having
unwittingly accepted newer but inferior version. There is such a thing
as word of mouth, and at this moment it does not favor Firefox. I say,
well done. Keep this up and care level indeed drops to zero, there's
no worries about version numbers when something is indeed thing of
distant past. :D
ps. is being clueless a job requirement @ mozilla? do you have to take
lessons for that? get off your high horse already...
Reuben Morais
I feel for the users you know, which are unfortunate to be in this situation.
>
> ps. is being clueless a job requirement @ mozilla? do you have to take
> lessons for that? get off your high horse already...
>
I do not work for Mozilla.
--
Reuben
Petter Andersson
> I do not work for Mozilla.
My apologies. Must have been the mozdev-typical mental blocks/denial
that led to mistaken identity. Boy, this cult sure does brainwash its
followers well.
Chris
<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
Alex Faaborg
> 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
> ______________________________**_________________
> dev-usability mailing list
> dev-us...@lists.mozilla.**org <dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org>
> https://lists.mozilla.org/**listinfo/dev-usability<https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-usability>
>
Robert Kaiser
Yes, you do try to brainwash us for sure.
Robert Kaiser
--
Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never
meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible
arguments that we as a community should think about. And most of the
time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :)
Robert Kaiser
> Version numbers are no more jargon than book editions or automobile
> model years.
Right. I usually only see book editions be mentioned in very small and
cryptic language in places where most people don't look at. And here in
Europe we usually don't talk about automobile model years, we talk about
names given to models and from there describe how they look or their
features. Only auto-geeks know model years or model numbers.
> It seems Mozilla recognizes only two types of users.
You are part of the community by posting here. Mozilla is the community.
So you are Mozilla. And you are only caring about two types of users?
Too bad, the people trying to develop Firefox further seem to me to care
about way more kinds of users and know that they are actual people, who
usually want to get things done in a secure and privacy-aware way on the
web.
Tyler Downer
> On a more personal note, I think the way that Asa has been treated over the
> past few days by a few members of the Mozilla community has been shockingly
> inappropriate. Just because this is the internet and you are hiding behind
> a screen a keyboard doesn't give one the moral justification to act in a
> completely uncivilized manner. We love intellectual debate, but please
> remember to attack things, and not people (note the follow up thread).
>
> -Alex
I would like to add, that even though I have a differing opinion than
Asa on this discussion, I was quite horrified to see the number of
violent demands that came out over a proposed change in a piece of
software. None of that was professional or in anyway the right way to
behave, even online. That exact attitude is what makes people not want
to listen to you. If you find yourself wanting to kill someone because
of a software change in a browser, maybe you need to go for a long
trip in the mountains with no computers or electronic devices besides
a GPS, and see there is a real world out there. Keep this discussion
serious and professional. As Alex said, attack things, not people.
Tyler
SmoothPorcupine
On Aug 20, 3:10 pm, Alex Faaborg <faab...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> -Making the about window primarily designed to achieve the task of checking
> "am I up to date" is great
Would, "Check for Updates" not be a better label in that case?
> -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)
> [...]
> -Under the current model we are headed towards version 47, and that is just
> going to sound silly in a world used to seeing small version numbers
What /was/ the intention of bumping major version so often? Why
couldn't you bump minor more instead? "Hiding" it will not make it
less silly.
> -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
Same logic applies to seeing version number in the troubleshooting
window. What is the difference between the two that the version can be
removed from the one but not the other? (This is the core issue, by
the way.)
> -Version numbers are generally speaking technical jargon, and user
> experience designers generally speaking like to try to remove instances of
> jargon
There is undue jargon and there is necessary complexity. Version
numbers are the latter.
--
Complexity is proportional to verbosity. Responses kept short for
clarity. Exposition can take place in later replies, if necessary.
Gervase Markham
> Yes, you do try to brainwash us for sure.
DFTT.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> == I personally believe the following things are true ==
>
> -Making the about window primarily designed to achieve the task of checking
> "am I up to date" is great
I agree.
> -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 that a vague understanding of version numbers ("first number is
a big change, second number a small change") is much more widespread
than you think. This isn't quite the same as our previous technical
definition ("major number change == breaking things; minor == less or no
breakage) but it mapped reasonably. Now, it maps very badly, and this
confuses people.
Given the arbitrariness of version numbering from a geek point of view,
I still have no idea why we didn't decide to increment the major number
once per year, and the second number for all the other releases in a year.
It's a short step from that idea to "2011.4", etc. - but I think that
still causes cognitive dissonance, because version 2011 of a product
seems weird. Even Ubuntu knocked off the first two digits to get the
numbers down into a sane range.
> -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
But removing the version number from the About dialog has the potential
to cause all sorts of other press-report-related confusion as well, some
scenarios of which people have explained in this thread.
> -Multiple decimal places in version numbers is silly, and is pretty much
> only encountered in the realm of software
"Silly" is a value judgement :-) They aren't decimal places, they are
separators - like the dots in a domain name.
> -Version numbers are generally speaking technical jargon, and user
> experience designers generally speaking like to try to remove instances of
> jargon
On the contrary, they are unique identifiers. Humans understand unique
identifiers with multiple parts. "23-06-2001". "14:33:17". "17 1st Ave,
San Francisco, CA". Understanding that this is software version "4.1.3",
and that "5.2.7" is a later version and "3.0.0" is an earlier one, is
not beyond the wit of most mortals.
> -Some technical users really want to see the version number in an easy way
> for legitimate reasons (web developers, extension developers, IT, etc.)
> these people are a minority, but like the people who need to access view
> source or developer tools, they are also important. Since they are building
> stuff you could even argue that they are very disproportionately important
And because they are people that, just at the moment, we don't want to
annoy any more than we have already. And they are drivers of Firefox
adoption among family and friends, and are the people who make sure
websites support us well.
> == One possible proposed solution (also proposed by many other people
> through many channels ==
>
> We de-jargonify the version number, and make it time based.
>
> 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.
If we could switch to 11.1 instead, that would be much better - as you
say, big numbers feel weird. But we need to do it quick, before or when
mozilla-central goes to 11.
> 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'm not sure I have much confidence that the press will use the long
form over the short form.
> Overall keeping the version number around in the about dialog doesn't really
> diminish the work to make the dialog primarily about confirming that you are
> running the newest version (or that you need to apply an update), and that
> is from my perspective the larger UI win here.
Amen, brother!
> == Why so much emotion? ==
>
> 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 a very pertinent insight. And we need to decide what to
do about it, and how we can make them more comfortable. If knowing the
version number gives people a feeling of control, we need to take that
into account.
Gerv
mile...@gmail.com
> -Making the about window primarily designed to achieve the task of checking
> "am I up to date" is great
This does not necessitate removing the version number.
> -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
If we're talking about the 5.0.1 situation, we should have rolled the
version number on all platforms. Hiding the version number instead is
a bizarre baby/bathwater failure.
> -Multiple decimal places in version numbers is silly, and is pretty much
> only encountered in the realm of software
Firefox *is* software. The alternatives I hear are moving towards
something like model years (pretty much only encountered in the realm
of software) and expiration dates (pretty much only encountered in the
realm of food items).
> -Version numbers are generally speaking technical jargon, and user
> experience designers generally speaking like to try to remove instances of
> jargon
Sure, but there's always a balance. Not finding a piece of
information where it has always been, and where every operating system
Human Interface guide tells you it should be, is a poor user
experience. I have a hard time understanding how that loses to the
desire to remove jargon.
> -Some technical users really want to see the version number in an easy way
> for legitimate reasons (web developers, extension developers, IT, etc.)
> these people are a minority, but like the people who need to access view
> source or developer tools, they are also important.
Under rapid release, the incompatible addon is going to be a prominent
feature of users' lives for a while. Normal users, not people who need
developer tools. about:support is going to be daunting to them, and is
hard to find in the first place. As I said in the other thread, if you
truly believe that we should be hiding the version number, it should
be the *last* thing we do, *after* version numbers don't matter. They
still matter today, so we shouldn't hide them now.
> -Under the current model we are headed towards version 47, and that is just
> going to sound silly in a world used to seeing small version numbers
There are plenty of examples of large version numbers out there, and
even more examples of dropping the 'major' number and marching on with
the 'minor' number as the prominent version. This is a pretty silly
concern, IMO.
> == One possible proposed solution (also proposed by many other people
> through many channels ==
>
> We de-jargonify the version number, and make it time based.
An abbreviated datestamp like Ubuntu uses would be fine if you're
really concerned about the version number getting big. I'm not, but if
this scratches the dejargonification itch enough to get you to leave
the version number where users expect to find it, then so be it. It's
worth noting, however, that Ubuntu uses a 'nickname' very prominently.
Most users refer to "Lucid" or "Maverick" rather than "10.04" or
"10.10"
> 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.
>
> 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.
Oh please no. Do not mix dates and sequence in the main version
notation. I'm a user of an open source project that does this, and it
confusing and infuriating. Humans read strings that look like dates as
dates. (2011.3 just came out? It's August!) Make it a date (2011.08,
or just 11.08) or a number (6) but don't try to mix them (2011.3). My
opinions about point releases aren't as strong. Ubuntu does sequential
point releases (their LTS is currently 10.04.3) but I'd suggest
something obviously non-date based that allows for more than one
patch. (11.08b or 11.08p2, or maybe 11.08r2)
> Overall keeping the version number around in the about dialog doesn't really
> diminish the work to make the dialog primarily about confirming that you are
> running the newest version (or that you need to apply an update), and that
> is from my perspective the larger UI win here.
Then let's leave it there and move on. We should revisit that when
incompatible add-ons are a thing of the past. We aren't there yet.
>
> 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.
This is a touchy issue for a bunch of reasons. Moving to an all-
upgrade-all-the-time model can pretty easily be misconstrued as "Yes,
Firefox is all about user choice, except for whether or not you're
going to upgrade." We have a long way to go before the add-on
ecosystem has completely caught up with rapid release, which means we
will continue to have users that can't upgrade without breaking their
daily use case. I'd much rather see effort go into the rather tricky
UX problems there, then into digging in our heels over the version
number in the about box.
> 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).
That's a tough argument to make, Alex. The bug's summary was "Remove
version from About window", which got a 'typo corrected' to "Move the
version number from the Firefox -> Help -> About window to the Firefox
-> Help -> Troubleshooting window". It may not have been the central
point of your efforts, but it's hard to claim it wasn't the central
point of the bug.
mile...@gmail.com
> Firefox *is* software. The alternatives I hear are moving towards
> something like model years (pretty much only encountered in the realm
> of software) and expiration dates (pretty much only encountered in the
> realm of food items).
That should read:
...something like model years (pretty much only encountered in the
realm of automobiles)...
That's what I get for writing before I finish my first cup of coffee. :
(
-Zandr
Ron Hunter
> My bloviated meandering follows what Gervase Markham graced us with on
> 8/22/2011 6:42 AM:
> cared to) look for an IE version number. Part of the reason is that I
> think that they've been very successful at announcing their latest
> releases in terms of version (e.g. IE6, ... , IE9) and that they have a
> relatively long release cycle (I'm ignoring the downside effects of this
> since it's not germane to the point I'm attempting to make.)
> Furthermore, if one does happen to find the version number this what
> they get, "Version: 9.0.8112.16421 and Update Versions:
> 9.0.2(KB2559049)" or something to that effect.
>
> My point being is that the version methodology being used there is quite
> mystifying, they're not using the seemingly accepted method of
> Version.Release.Maintenance (V.R.M.) and even muddy it more by having an
> ancillary "Update" number that who knows what that means. It is one of
> the most jargonized versioning schemes I've seen but somehow the
> installed users don't seem to have a problem with it (at least not that
> I've seen.) My take on this is what many have stated in that the ones
> mostly concerned about version numbers are Enterprise clients and power
> users. A small, yet very important, slice of the Mozilla install base.
> And, the ones most easily able to find out where the version number has
> been moved.
>
> With that being said, I'm ambivalent on whether it should still remain
> in the About screen since I'm a proponent of it being better placed in
> the about:support screen.
>
Just a few minutes ago, a user asked about how to leave feedback since
mozilla.feedback is no longer available. My first question was what
version of FF was he using, because this feature has changed over the
past few versions, and I needed to know in order to tell him where to
find the feedback feature. Now, if we could ASSUME that every user
updates every time an update is released, this wouldn't be a problem,
BUT THEY DON'T. So, if he comes back and says he can't find the version
number because it is no longer in the About dialog (if this change is
made), then I have wasted some time, and further have to explain how to
find the version number, then I can know where to tell him to look for
the feature he needs.
Alex Faaborg
> It may not have been the central
> point of your efforts, but it's hard to claim it wasn't the central
> point of the bug.
>
yes, by "the bug" I meant purely the one in my head, what the team was
talking about and the overall usability issue (making it easier to update).
The literal bug 678775 was all about the version number. I also didn't read
bug 678775 until both it and this thread had already accumulated a massive
number of comments.
Anyway, bug 678775 has been set to invalid, and there are absolutely no
plans to remove the version number from our UI.
I would like us to perhaps consider a time-based version number sometime in
the distant future since it maps to something users already understand (and
also maps well to our release schedule), but that's an entirely separate
discussion.
-Alex
> _______________________________________________
> dev-usability mailing list
> dev-us...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-usability
>
Alex Faaborg
> Make it a date (2011.08,
> or just 11.08) or a number (6) but don't try to mix them
>
yeah, I came to this conclusion as well. Also, if we include ship dates in
Aurora, Nightly and Beta, it is kind of neat because you are using a product
that is labeled as being from **the future** (cue planetarium music).
-Alex
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Alex Faaborg <faa...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> It may not have been the central
>> point of your efforts, but it's hard to claim it wasn't the central
>> point of the bug.
>>
>
> yes, by "the bug" I meant purely the one in my head, what the team was
> talking about and the overall usability issue (making it easier to update).
> The literal bug 678775 was all about the version number. I also didn't read
> bug 678775 until both it and this thread had already accumulated a massive
> number of comments.
>
> Anyway, bug 678775 has been set to invalid, and there are absolutely no
> plans to remove the version number from our UI.
>
> I would like us to perhaps consider a time-based version number sometime in
> the distant future since it maps to something users already understand (and
> also maps well to our release schedule), but that's an entirely separate
> discussion.
>
> -Alex
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:13 AM, za...@mozilla.com <mile...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
Jesper Kristensen
>>
>> Make it a date (2011.08,
>> or just 11.08) or a number (6) but don't try to mix them
>>
>
> yeah, I came to this conclusion as well. Also, if we include ship dates in
> Aurora, Nightly and Beta, it is kind of neat because you are using a product
> that is labeled as being from **the future** (cue planetarium music).
>
> -Alex
If you use such versioning in the UI, please don't put it in the UA
string shown to websites. The nice thing about the new version numbers
is that it changes the same way each time. Web developers doing bad
sniffing will be hit by their bug every six weeks, which will more
likely make them want to fix it. If they are only hit by their bug next
year in January, they more likely end up working around it hitting the
same bug next year.
Henri Sivonen
> -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.
Alex Faaborg
> 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 <hsiv...@iki.fi> 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.
>
> > 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.