Do we keep Fx2 documentation?
Chris Ilias
addressed is:
Are we going to keep Firefox 2 content in the knowledge base?
My vote is to remove Firefox 2 content because:
* It makes article markup much cleaner, thus much easier to edit.
* We should only provide documentation for supported versions of Firefox.
Matthew Middleton
I also think we should remove unsupported versions from current
articles, as having them makes maintaining and translating articles much
harder. Pages could potentially become very long, if we maintain
information for every Firefox version after it becomes unsupported.
On the other hand, many people will still be using Firefox 2, and simply
deleting this information would be frustrating for these users. The
best solution for this, in my opinion, would be to identify the last
revision that supports a particular Firefox version. Firefox 2 users,
for example, could then click a link to go back to the last revision
from before we removed Firefox 2 content. This would offer the benefit
of not maintaining documentation for old versions, without deleting
information that users need.
Axel Hecht
I'm tempted to say that it's not a question of if we keep it, but how
long we keep it. I'd suggest to keep some extra padding time. We're just
about to ship the last update to 2.0.0.x on dec 16, so right now, I'd
still consider fx2 to be supported.
Do we have kind of usage stats of sumo on fx2? Might be good to have
some data on how important sumo is for the remaining fx2 users.
I wonder if we could archive EOLifed versions in a way, too. Like, take
the product specific markup and create a separate page set, with big red
warning signs "this browser is unsupported and might be at risk" or so.
Axel
David Tenser
> Chris Ilias wrote:
>> One thing that has been touched on in other threads, but not really
>> addressed is:
>> Are we going to keep Firefox 2 content in the knowledge base?
We have talked about this more than once and agreed that we aren't just
going to remove content as soon as Firefox 2 is EOLed. As Axel says
below, we should allow some time for people to transition.
>>
>> My vote is to remove Firefox 2 content because:
>> * It makes article markup much cleaner, thus much easier to edit.
>> * We should only provide documentation for supported versions of Firefox.
While I definitely agree with you that the first item above is a strong
reason for removing Firefox 2 content, we need to take care to not rip
off support from existing users.
I'd like to set some guidelines on how we go about based on the
different types of content:
* For all Firefox 2 only articles, add a snippet (i.e. a content block)
at the top saying that this version of Firefox is no longer supported.
No need to remove the article.
* For Firefox 3 only articles, no change is needed.
* For all Firefox 2+3 articles, allow a transition period where we keep
the Firefox 2 content until we reach a treshold of Firefox 2 users (say
<2% Fx2 users). When Firefox 2 is selected with SHOWFOR, we
automatically display the same snippet saying that this version is not
supported.
Do we have any rough stats on how many articles exist in the three
categories above?
>
> I'm tempted to say that it's not a question of if we keep it, but how
> long we keep it. I'd suggest to keep some extra padding time. We're just
> about to ship the last update to 2.0.0.x on dec 16, so right now, I'd
> still consider fx2 to be supported.
>
> Do we have kind of usage stats of sumo on fx2? Might be good to have
> some data on how important sumo is for the remaining fx2 users.
About 4.5% of the SUMO visitors use various versions of Firefox 2. I'm
guessing that corresponds well with the ratio of Firefox 2/3 users
generally.
john1
------Background------------
I am an early (compulsive really) installer of innovative software.
However, I often get burned by bells and whistles leaving with a
good knowledge of what's out there but often spending way too much
time troubleshooting the "innovative" softare. More often than not I
have let my curiosity and zeal for new features lead me down the wrong
innovative branch and have to go back to the pure and time tested
trunk when I realize that the core functionality had been compromised
so much that the purported gains come with an unjustified cost.
This type of behaviour on my part is ok with software as long as the
software you choose to try does not diminish the performance of other
software (due resource consumption) or using it becomes the foundation
of an extremely interconnected network of other software so integral
that you depend on its functionality tomorrow for your daily tasks
Unfortunately, I've reached the point where Firefox often does both of
these things leading me to look elsewhere for a redundant browser as a
backup (FF3 or k-meleon)
First firefox3 made the eeepc (ubuntu 8.10) unusuable so I spent the
last month tweaking it but it still didn't reach the speed of firefox2
nor did any other browser I tried. (my girlfriend blamed me for
upgrading it) Worse is that even launching it prevented me from
using my other software fluidly while I waited for 10 minutes for it
to stablize... Firefox2 and of course the other gecko engined
browsers are stable and fast despite lacking some nice plugins that
worked fine with FF2.
Sure the new hardware and ubuntu operating system few plugins could
have been to blame...
But that led me to compare firefox3 to firefox2 on my toshiba
pentium4... Firefox2 was way better.
To be safe I left firefox2 on my primary windowsXP (dualcore duo)
desktop at work. Subjectivly speaking, I feel FF2 has actually sped
up over the last 6 months. I was compelled by FF3 by the idea of
dedicated FF3 softappliances for facebook ajaxy things and by the
chrome publicized ideas of putting each mega site in a resource jail
of sorts to prevent a webapp from interfering with other important
tasks. (I often blame FF when the site itself is often to blame)
Back to the point, In troubleshooting firefox3 on my other 2 computers
I removed all but adblock-plus and still saw poor performance. It
feels faster than explorer which i only use when i have to. I have
34 plugins enabled on firefox2 at least half of which I feel as though
are an integral part of my routine versus like 2 on FF3....
Other than the inevitable issues I will have due to lack of security
updates and website support, why on earth should I upgrade now? Its
too much of a risk. Take two steps back to take one step forward you
say...? I want to wait! I just got to the sweet spot of the firefox2
life cycle.
---Conclusion---
For those of us who are semi-conservative, why not keep the
documentation around? In fact, why not date it, version it, tag it,
and freeze it but leave it until the page views drop to near zero?
Hopefully, someone will create a community maintained wiki support for
it.
David Tenser
> best solution for this, in my opinion, would be to identify the last
> revision that supports a particular Firefox version. Firefox 2 users,
> for example, could then click a link to go back to the last revision
> from before we removed Firefox 2 content. This would offer the benefit
> of not maintaining documentation for old versions, without deleting
> information that users need.
Is it possible to show an old revision of an article in the same way as
the current version is shown? If this functionality already exists, this
might be an interesting thing to do.
David Tenser
> Sorry to chime in uninvited but ....
Everyone is invited. Thanks for joining.
> ---Conclusion---
> For those of us who are semi-conservative, why not keep the
> documentation around? In fact, why not date it, version it, tag it,
> and freeze it but leave it until the page views drop to near zero?
Since it's a wiki, old versions of articles should be accessible
somehow. See Matthew's idea, which might be worth investigating. But
really, staying on 2.0.x means you're running an unsupported version of
Firefox that won't be patched if security issues are discovered in the
future, and that won't be including the malware protection service. It's
simply not a very good idea to stay on an unsupported branch unless you
care little about security.
> Hopefully, someone will create a community maintained wiki support for
> it.
Well, SUMO is a community-powered wiki support site. :)
Matthew Middleton
> Is it possible to show an old revision of an article in the same way as
> the current version is shown? If this functionality already exists, this
> might be an interesting thing to do.
Currently, the only way to view an old version is to view a "preview".
If we chose to go this route, we would need to change tiki-index.php to
allow a page version ID to be specified, so we could link to an old
version. This would not be a hard thing to add.
Majken Connor
> _______________________________________________
> support-planning mailing list
> support-...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-planning
>
Would this give page IDs to all revisions or could we mark certain revisions
as available and then they'd be assigned an ID?
Gen Kanai
documentation on the site until such time that there are only a small
number of Firefox 2 users left on the web. We should have strong
language on each page urging the user of Firefox 2 to upgrade to
Firefox 3, but we should keep the content up until Firefox 2 share
drops below 1% or so.
David Tenser
Yep, I agree; that was pretty much my suggestion too, except I picked 2%
instead of 1%. :) 1% works well too.
Chris Ilias
> * For all Firefox 2 only articles, add a snippet (i.e. a content block)
> at the top saying that this version of Firefox is no longer supported.
> No need to remove the article.
What do you think of this content block:
https://support.mozilla.com/kb/Dynamic+Content?bl=n#Fx2EOL
It's basically taken straight from
https://developer.mozilla.org/devnews/index.php/2008/12/18/firefox-20020-now-available-for-download/
Cheng Wang
Simon (Underpass)
> Chris Ilias wrote:
> I don't like WARNING. I think Note and non-red is sufficient.
I agree with Cheng. It's a bit too "flashy"...
Chris Ilias
Fixed. Although, I do think it should presented as something more
important than a regular note.
Majken Connor
much perhaps the blue we use for links or something of the like. Or maybe
have a heading "Firefox 2 will no longer be supported" and make it a dark
orange (to fit the site) and have the rest of the note normal.
David Tenser
> I agree. We want people to read it. It needs to stand out. If the red is too
> much perhaps the blue we use for links or something of the like. Or maybe
> have a heading "Firefox 2 will no longer be supported" and make it a dark
> orange (to fit the site) and have the rest of the note normal.
Yes, I was going to suggest a heading inside the notification bar. No
need for special colors if the heading is catching the reader's attention.
Maybe something encouraging like "Please upgrade to Firefox 3 now" or
similar.
Majken Connor
> _______________________________________________
> support-planning mailing list
> support-...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-planning
>
The heading may be the only part the reader catches when they skim. If we
just ask them to upgrade they are likely to make assumptions that we're just
pushing the release. To be effective the heading needs to be about support
ending, that's the part that affects the user and will make the user want to
read more to find out what's going on and what they can do about it.
Mike Connor
We already have plans in place to communicate this to users via
multiple touchpoints, and it makes sense to have this be part of the
overall Marketing plan for messaging.
We're going to get increasingly aggressive over time, as we did for
1.5 EOL, FWIW.
-- Mike
David Tenser
>
> On Dec 21, 2008, at 1:59 PM, David Tenser wrote:
>
>> On 08-12-21 19.26, Majken Connor wrote:
>>> I agree. We want people to read it. It needs to stand out. If the red
>>> is too
>>> much perhaps the blue we use for links or something of the like. Or
>>> maybe
>>> have a heading "Firefox 2 will no longer be supported" and make it a
>>> dark
>>> orange (to fit the site) and have the rest of the note normal.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I was going to suggest a heading inside the notification bar. No
>> need for special colors if the heading is catching the reader's
>> attention.
>>
>> Maybe something encouraging like "Please upgrade to Firefox 3 now" or
>> similar.
>
> We already have plans in place to communicate this to users via multiple
> touchpoints, and it makes sense to have this be part of the overall
> Marketing plan for messaging.
>
Makes sense. What other touch points -- the whatsnew page, in-product
dialogs? Any finalized wording, or someone responsible for that? We
could use the same messaging on SUMO.
Mike Connor
On Dec 21, 2008, at 4:09 PM, David Tenser wrote:
> Makes sense. What other touch points -- the whatsnew page, in-
> product dialogs? Any finalized wording, or someone responsible for
> that? We could use the same messaging on SUMO.
Yep and yep. There's also been some discussion about how to do stuff
in other contexts, i.e. startpage. I'm actually a little surprised
you're not aware of this already. I don't know who owns this now, I
guess ping Dave and go from there?
-- Mike
David Tenser
It might also surprise you that I don't know everything. I figured I
should ask you first since you indicated you knew about such
discussions. I'll dig it up myself though, thank you very much.
We've had lots of discussions about these pages within the marketing
team, but none I've been involved with about the specific messaging
around Firefox 2 EOL, except for one particular discussion I initiated
myself about what to say to people running OSes Fx2 supported but Fx3
doesn't, where the consensus was (via Melissa):
"I think the basic point here is that they are on operating systems
that are no longer being supported by those vendors. Our mission
and organizational focus is on building a better Internet. We end
of life past versions of Firefox so that we can use all available
resources to achieve that objective."
Chris Ilias
> One thing that has been touched on in other threads, but not really
> addressed is:
> Are we going to keep Firefox 2 content in the knowledge base?