Mozilla Tech Evangelism

Bob Clary

unread,

May 11, 2003, 11:45:07 PM5/11/03

to

Hello All,

This note is intended to jump start a discussion of where
Mozilla Tech Evangelism stands today, and what we can do to
make it more effective in the future.

Mozilla Tech Evangelism is an effort designed to help increase
support for Mozilla and it's related browsers on the web and
inside of corporations.

The graphs at
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/status-graphs.html>
show that while we have seen positive movement in terms of
resolved issues with sites we continue to have an ever
increasing number of Tech Evangelism bugs with a decreasing
effort being applied to contacting sites. Today there are over
2500 open Tech Evangelism bugs out of almost 38000 open bugs in all
of bugzilla.

Evangelism is a thankless task that has few rewards. I would
like to publicly thank everyone who has reported or triaged a
Tech Evangelism bug or contacted a site with an Evangelism
problem. None the less, we have seen a decrease in the numbers
of people who have been actively contacting sites and need to
recruit more people to help, make their efforts more efficient
and drive the number of open Evangelism issues down to Zarro.

What is the goal of the Mozilla Tech Evangelism effort? I
believe it is to make the use of Mozilla and other Gecko-based
browsers relatively easy for anyone who chooses to use it. In
order to accomplish this goal we must convince web site and
web application business owners, administrators, and
developers that it is in their best interest to support
Mozilla and Gecko. Simply evangelizing Standards is
insufficient if the site can not economically justify the
costs involved in updating their content.

What tactics can we use?

I. Increase market share (and pressure) of Mozilla and other
Gecko-based browsers.

Sites and developers will not expend the resources necessary
to support Mozilla/Gecko if they do not see the potential loss
of customers or income. We need to get Mozilla/Gecko's share
above the current 2-5% in order to get their attention.

A related need is to get web site analytic software to report
total Gecko percentages and not just specific branded versions
of Gecko. By splitting our reported percentages across the
multitude of browsers based upon Gecko we artificially
decrease our reported market share.

In the past we have relied upon the Tech Evangelism effort to
contact sites, to educate them concerning the error of their
ways and convince them to update their content to support us.
This reliance on a small group of people to accomplish this
has not been as effective as we might have wished.

A more effective course of action would be for large numbers
of customers to complain to sites/developers regarding their
products. We have continually seen responses from sites where
they say "We do not support Mozilla. It is not used by a
significant percentage of our users." They may say this to the
first, second or tenth person to complain however after the
hundredth or thousandth complaint they might change their
position. We need to leverage our users to contact sites and
complain while we dedicate our evangelism resources to more
productive efforts of helping organizations support
Mozilla/Gecko. How can we do this?

I believe that most of the people who are likely to adopt
Mozilla or other Gecko-based browsers without effort on our
part have done so. In order to increase the share of
Gecko-based browsers we must be proactive in reaching out to
new users.

New demographic targets for Mozilla/Gecko are high schools,
colleges/universities, corporations and governments
world-wide. Mozilla and Gecko have many advantages for these
potential users such as the ability to run on a variety of
operating systems, customization, localization and security.

By promoting alternative operating systems such as Linux we
also promote Mozilla and Gecko as the premier browser on those
platforms. How would we approach the effort of demonstrating
to schools, corporations and governments the
cost effectiveness of adopting free, open source operating
systems where we have dominance?

By providing the means for customizing Mozilla for
distribution to specific target audiences we provide a another
potential benefit of adopting Mozilla in an organization. The
Client Customization Kit (CCK) has much potential to help
distribute Mozilla to internal users of schools, corporations
and governments. The CCK needs to be improved and extended to
work in other operating systems than Windows. How can we get
the work on the CCK moving?

We need to ease the transition from content designed for
fourth generation browsers. While the focus for many of us is
the promotion of the use of standards, we can not expect
organizations to expend significant resources to adapt their
existing content in these difficult economic times.
Development of compatibility libraries which would allow sites
to continue to use existing web applications with little
modification would help to convince them that standardizing on
Mozilla/Gecko is economically viable. For example, can we
contribute to http://layeremu.mozdev.org/ ?

If an organization wishes to transition from using Netscape
Communicator 4.x to Mozilla/Gecko what guidance can we give
them? What are the issues these organizations face related to
Email/Profile migration issues, Plugin compatibility issues,
Security, etc. What organizations can we use as examples and
case studies for the migration from Netscape Communicator 4.x
(or even Internet Explorer) to Mozilla/Gecko?

Many organizations will not consider switching to Mozilla or
other Gecko based browsers without some level of technical
support available. What can we do about providing support? Are
there reliable, respected organizations which can take
advantage of this business opportunity?

II. Develop support oriented documentation

Once a site, developer or organization decides to support
Mozilla and Gecko we need to have the documentation resources
they need available for them to use. This includes guides to
developing modern standards based web applications, technical
notes on specific issues in various releases of Mozilla/Gecko,
guides to adopting Mozilla/Gecko in organizations etc.

I tried to get an effort started for using existing Tech
Evangelism bugs as sources for identifying issues which could
be documented as technical notes which would help web
developers. David Baron agreed that these technical notes
could be hosted inside of the docs/web-developer directory
inside of a technotes subdirectory. Although I began
identifying potential technotes and formats for them, I failed
to follow through with the idea and it has stagnated. One of
the common objections I received was the lack of a means of
organizing and searching technotes. I still believe the
development of a "knowledge base" for our web developers is a
good idea. How do we go about getting this effort off the
ground?

How can Tech Evangelism and the Documentation projects work
together to identify and produce the documentation that our
web developers need?

III. Tech Evangelism Bugs

Tech Evangelism Components are currently organized by
language/region and are geared towards triaging reported
issues, contacting sites and convincing them to update their
content. Many of the original owners and qa assignees for Tech
Evangelism bugs are no longer available to handle these bugs.
The current situation is summarized in
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/components.html>.

Is this organization appropriate? Should we combine
components? Add new components? Who is available to take over
the components in need of owners and qa assignees?

IV. Cooperation, Communication and Management.

The Tech Evangelism effort does not exist in a vacuum. It
involves coordinating work between the Tech Evangelism
project, the Documentation project, the Mozilla University
project, developers and others. How can we work together to achieve
our goal of making Mozilla/Gecko the premier browser on the
web?

Who can take on the responsibilities for managing and leading
the Tech Evangelism project?

Conclusion

This note outlines some of the ideas I have concerning Tech
Evangelism. I hope that you will reply and help refine these
ideas, volunteer to help implement them and get involved in
the Tech Evangelism project. Please reply to this email in
netscape.public.mozilla.general and come to #evangelism on
irc.mozilla.org if you wish to discuss this in real time.

Thanks,
Bob

b...@bclary.com

unread,

May 12, 2003, 12:22:18 AM5/12/03

to Ed Mullen

Ed Mullen wrote:

> 38,000 open bugs? Yes, I know there is a good explanation and argument
> to defend that stat. Still, what a negative impression that made. So,
> you might want to market your concepts a bit differently.

That is for all Products and Components and include Unconfirmed bugs,
requests for enhancements etc. Considering there are over 204,000 total
bugs and only 38000 open, I don't think it is a big deal. If someone
wants to mispresent the information they will do so regardless.

/bc

Ed Mullen

unread,

May 12, 2003, 12:16:46 AM5/12/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> This note is intended to jump start a discussion of where
> Mozilla Tech Evangelism stands today, and what we can do to
> make it more effective in the future.
>
> Mozilla Tech Evangelism is an effort designed to help increase
> support for Mozilla and it's related browsers on the web and
> inside of corporations.
>
> The graphs at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/status-graphs.html>
> show that while we have seen positive movement in terms of
> resolved issues with sites we continue to have an ever
> increasing number of Tech Evangelism bugs with a decreasing
> effort being applied to contacting sites. Today there are over
> 2500 open Tech Evangelism bugs out of almost 38000 open bugs in all
> of bugzilla.
>

[snip]

> Thanks,
> Bob
>

38,000 open bugs?!!!

Good God! Aside from the laudable intent of your message, that single
statement leaped out at me above all else.

Simply from a credibility standpoint, I have doubts about any effort to
improve the public perception of Mozilla when site operators can easily
point to such a statistic. Yes, yes. I know. If we knew how many open
bugs Microsoft had running on Windows XP it might be even more
horrendous. But my point is public perception - marketing, if you will.
Which is why MS doesn't publish such figures.

And then the notion occurs that Mozilla isn't a "commercial product" so
we're comparing apples to avatars. But, still, perception is reality.
Especially to those who won't take the time to think the issue through,
and most especially to those who have vested interests to not do so -
most of the targets of the evangelism.

Honestly now. I think the evangelism effort is to be applauded. Still,

38,000 open bugs? Yes, I know there is a good explanation and argument
to defend that stat. Still, what a negative impression that made. So,
you might want to market your concepts a bit differently.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Just before someone gets nervous, do they experience
cocoons in their stomach?

Ed Mullen

unread,

May 12, 2003, 1:17:02 AM5/12/03

to

I acknowledged in my post that the figure quoted, in and of itself, is
open to interpretation. You neatly edited my message to deliberately
not address my main point that /the perception/ of the original post is
what's important.

I think the perception IS a big deal. Assuming, of course, that the
objective is to cast Mozilla (the product and project) in a positive
light and to compete with like products in the marketplace. If not, of
course, the whole discussion is moot.

The thing that any company has going for it over an open-source effort
like this (no matter what the validity or advantages of the actual
product) is the ability (via dollars) to market it in a positive light.

Evangelism is a nifty (and seemingly lofty and benign) term for
marketing. I'd like to see the effort succeed but I doubt it will if,
in public venues (such as this), such poorly constructed messages are so
visibly promulgated.

But, of course, in such an egalitarian effort, no one is actually /in
charge of/ (meaning, it's their job) marketing the product. So, we all
just shoot messages to and fro on these news groups in the hopes that
the masses will somehow be enlightened. Lofty ideal, silly in practice.

This random, periodically silly, stuff is not necessarily a bad thing.
It's actually a major reason why I like Mozilla. I like contrary things
like this. And I take the time to try to reason through this stuff
because I really like Mozilla as a piece of software (I'm avoiding
calling it a /product/ for obvious reasons) and want it to continue its
existence.

But! If there is a marketplace objective to be achieved, someone needs
to be charged with achieving it, there needs to be a concerted,
carefully crafted, competitively produced effort to do so. Blasting out
a message noting that there are 38,000 open bugs is just plain
counterproductive. Perception is reality in the marketplace despite
whatever the rationale is that could explain away that statistic.

Eric

unread,

May 12, 2003, 3:48:58 AM5/12/03

to

On 12-5-2003 5:45, Bob Clary wrote :

> III. Tech Evangelism Bugs
>
> Tech Evangelism Components are currently organized by
> language/region and are geared towards triaging reported
> issues, contacting sites and convincing them to update their
> content. Many of the original owners and qa assignees for Tech
> Evangelism bugs are no longer available to handle these bugs.
> The current situation is summarized in
> <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/components.html>.
>
> Is this organization appropriate? Should we combine
> components? Add new components? Who is available to take over
> the components in need of owners and qa assignees?

Hi Bob,

Good and very valid post.

To focus on one point only : I'm dutch and our Tech Evang bugs go into
Europe-West...as will the German bugs, the french, some english,
norwegian, swedish, english etc. Right now, all these
countries/languages share ONE QA contact and default assignee. From a
languague point of view it might be convenient to have language
-specific contacts. Lately i've been query'ing ".nl" Tech Evang bugs
and sorting those out. Perhaps more people can focus on Tech Evang
bugs in their own country? If you need someone for ".nl" i herewith
volunteer :)

In addition, perhaps a repository of Tech Evang contact letters to
web-site owners can be set-up containing translated letters.

Furthermore, quite often when contacting a site you hit a brick wall,
called "help desk" [there's an oxymoron if any ;)]

These people are instructed to kindly inform you that the DECISION was
made only to support IE and that if you want to use their site, you
have to switch browser and if necessary even OS.

Point being, contacting the web site via the web-site's contact
information, typically is not very succesful. Either because you don't
reach the actual site builders and most definitely won't reach the
people responsible for the decision to "optimize the site for Internet
Explorer".

One thing i can never understand is that companies seemingly try very
hard to keep their company accessible for all [making accomodations
for all sorts of inabilities etc. etc.] but can make a CONSCIOUS
DECISION to lose out on 2-5% of possible revenue by choosing to
support only a particular browser.

So much more than contacting companies through their web sites, these
organizational layers [builders, help desk] should be skipped and the
people who make these decisions should be contacted and re-educated.

--
Eric

cm

unread,

May 12, 2003, 7:45:53 AM5/12/03

to

"Ed Mullen" <e...@edmullen.net> wrote in message
news:b9na8j$dm...@ripley.netscape.com...

> b...@bclary.com wrote:
> > Ed Mullen wrote:
> >
> >
> >>38,000 open bugs? Yes, I know there is a good explanation and argument
> >>to defend that stat. Still, what a negative impression that made. So,
> >>you might want to market your concepts a bit differently.
> >
> >
> > That is for all Products and Components and include Unconfirmed bugs,
> > requests for enhancements etc. Considering there are over 204,000 total
> > bugs and only 38000 open, I don't think it is a big deal. If someone
> > wants to mispresent the information they will do so regardless.
> >
> > /bc
> >
>
> I acknowledged in my post that the figure quoted, in and of itself, is
> open to interpretation. You neatly edited my message to deliberately
> not address my main point that /the perception/ of the original post is
> what's important.
>

----------------snip--------------

I agree with you, Ed.

I think this is precisely why the Moz project isn't going any further that
it has. Attitudes of a lot of the Moz community turn "users" off. Did I say
Users? I forgot that Moz isn't FOR end Users. Wait. Bob Clary seems to be
making a call for getting Moz excepted AS an end User app? Well he'd better
tell all the Moz supporters that cut every request for help 'off at the
knees' by simple stating "it's NOT an end User app".

The current debate over at bugzilla over letting the "User" (there that word
is again) put the sig where they want is another good example. There are
many people blocking this bug's implementation due to their personal
distaste for the bug itself. Our business (as an example) with over 200
seats will not use an email client that won't post the sig in a
"business-centric" position. The Moz stalwarts stand behind supposed
standards and Moz usership continues to stagnate. The Moz comunity is going
to have to change its own attitude first.

Perception IS everything.

Oh, my suggestion for Tech Evangelism made-easy is to have something built
into Moz that will fire up the email client with all pertinent info from the
offending page and let the "User" enter the email of the site. Most people
don't know what to report, but if you had it automated to pop up a
ready-to-send email....

--
cristo morlan

Peter Lairo

unread,

May 12, 2003, 8:58:20 AM5/12/03

to

On 5/12/03 1:45 PM, cm wrote:

> The current debate over at bugzilla over letting the "User" (there that word
> is again) put the sig where they want is another good example. There are
> many people blocking this bug's implementation due to their personal
> distaste for the bug itself. Our business (as an example) with over 200
> seats will not use an email client that won't post the sig in a
> "business-centric" position.

Here's the bug for anyone that would be gracious enough to submit a patch:

Replying with the "start my reply above the quoted text" pref on should
prepend the signature above the quote text. (top)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62429#c74
--
Peter Lairo

--==--
A troll (and a terrorist) is similar to a dictator: Both excercise a
disproportionate amount of influence over the masses. One from the
"top", the other from the "bottom".
--==--

Stan Brown

unread,

May 12, 2003, 9:02:08 AM5/12/03

to

b...@bclary.com wrote in netscape.public.mozilla.general:

Might I suggest that that attitude is part of the problem?

Evangelism doesn't sit up on its throne and pooh-pooh every
criticism; it takes every criticism seriously.

Evangelism doesn't throw cold water on users with trouble by
snarling "This is not a user newsgroup, and anyway Mozilla is not a
user product."

Evangelism _does_ welcome converts, and treat them nicely.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"If there's one thing I know, it's men. I ought to: it's
been my life work." -- Marie Dressler, in /Dinner at Eight/

Jacek Piskozub

unread,

May 12, 2003, 10:43:53 AM5/12/03

to

On 5/11/2003 11:45 PM, Bob Clary wrote:

> [...] drive the number of open Evangelism issues down to Zarro.

We never do that if we do not close (mark as WONTFIX?) bugs where the
webadmins never reacted to the tech evangelism letters. We should start
doing that. Maybe one year, or 6 months after the second letter was sent?

>
> Is this organization appropriate? Should we combine
> components? Add new components? Who is available to take over
> the components in need of owners and qa assignees?

I can speak only about my component. I vote for leaving Cental Europe as
it is. I can manage as much, but not more.

Regards,

Jacek

Bob Clary

unread,

May 12, 2003, 10:58:17 AM5/12/03

to

Jacek Piskozub wrote:

> On 5/11/2003 11:45 PM, Bob Clary wrote:
>
> > [...] drive the number of open Evangelism issues down to Zarro.
>
> We never do that if we do not close (mark as WONTFIX?) bugs where the
> webadmins never reacted to the tech evangelism letters. We should start
> doing that. Maybe one year, or 6 months after the second letter was sent?
>

Right. Part of the reason we haven't been doing that is we (me too) have
not been triaging our bugs regularly and marking the non responsive
sites as wontfix. Hopefully we can change that.

> >
> > Is this organization appropriate? Should we combine
> > components? Add new components? Who is available to take over
> > the components in need of owners and qa assignees?
>
>
> I can speak only about my component. I vote for leaving Cental Europe as
> it is. I can manage as much, but not more.

Okay!

Bob Clary

unread,

May 12, 2003, 11:16:22 AM5/12/03

to

Eric wrote:

>
> To focus on one point only : I'm dutch and our Tech Evang bugs go into
> Europe-West...as will the German bugs, the french, some english,
> norwegian, swedish, english etc. Right now, all these
> countries/languages share ONE QA contact and default assignee. From a
> languague point of view it might be convenient to have language
> -specific contacts. Lately i've been query'ing ".nl" Tech Evang bugs
> and sorting those out. Perhaps more people can focus on Tech Evang
> bugs in their own country? If you need someone for ".nl" i herewith
> volunteer :)

Great! I have added you to my "volunteer list". When we get a new
Europe: Central owner you can coordinate with them. I agree that people
with specific language skills should work the bugs where they can make
contact in the site's native language.

>
> In addition, perhaps a repository of Tech Evang contact letters to
> web-site owners can be set-up containing translated letters.
>

We have a beginning of translated "form" letters however they will
probably need to be updated soon. See
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/site/letters/

> Furthermore, quite often when contacting a site you hit a brick wall,
> called "help desk" [there's an oxymoron if any ;)]
>
> These people are instructed to kindly inform you that the DECISION was
> made only to support IE and that if you want to use their site, you
> have to switch browser and if necessary even OS.
>
> Point being, contacting the web site via the web-site's contact
> information, typically is not very succesful. Either because you don't
> reach the actual site builders and most definitely won't reach the
> people responsible for the decision to "optimize the site for Internet
> Explorer".
>

Right. I have seen this many times before which is why I think
encouraging our users to complain to sites directly will help more than
just one or two people contacting them. They will ignore 1 or 2 messages
but not 1000.

> One thing i can never understand is that companies seemingly try very
> hard to keep their company accessible for all [making accomodations
> for all sorts of inabilities etc. etc.] but can make a CONSCIOUS
> DECISION to lose out on 2-5% of possible revenue by choosing to
> support only a particular browser.
>

Stupid people do stupid things. Stupid businesses go out of business.
Let's raise our share to a level that they can not ignore.

> So much more than contacting companies through their web sites, these
> organizational layers [builders, help desk] should be skipped and the
> people who make these decisions should be contacted and re-educated.
>

It is difficult to find such contacts but yes I agree we should contact
the highest level person in the organization who can change the decision
to not support us.

Perhaps a contact database although I would not want to be the source of
email addresses for spammers. We need to keep high level contacts
private and confidential so that companies will feel free to discuss
issues with us.

James Graham

unread,

May 12, 2003, 11:43:25 AM5/12/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:
<lots of stuff>

A while ago, someone on Mozillazine suggested creating mozilla.com to
complement mozilla.org. I think this would be a good idea from the point
of view of an evengalism effort. In particular the Mozilla.org could
provide some or more of the following content:

* A list of Mozilla distributers (Netscape, Beonex, et al.)

* A directory of companies offering support for Mozilla or Mozilla based
products. One of the most frequent objections to open source software is
the percieved lack of support.

* Links to Mozilla stable releases (i.e. not nightly releases)

* Advocacy documents, particually those targetted at end users (of all
varities). There are already several of these scattered about
mozilla.org. At the moment, however, they're useless since they are
diffiult to find.

* Specifcations: what can Mozilla do? Things like NTLM authentication
and Midas are important here, so people don't feel that they're locked
into Microsoft products when in fact they aren't.

* End user documentation. There is plenty of this in existence, despite
the fact that Mozilla itself is not targetted at end users. It might be
good to clean some of this up and make it easy to find.

* Documentation for things like the CCK and other features / tools aimed
at business users. There was an 'ask slashdot' once about rolling
Mozilla out in an organisation, and the feeling form most people (true
or not), is that it's hard and badly supported.

* Web developer resources. Like the 'how to make a cross browser page'
documents.

* Links to already existing external resources such as David Tenser's
help pages, Mozillazine, Mozdev and so on.

That list isn't comprehensive, but the idea is to make a clean
seperation between the developer site mozilla.org and the
user/distributer site mozilla.com (obviously the domain name is subject
to change). That would benefit both groups of people, since their sites
would be more focussed and so finding relevant information would be easier.

james

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,

May 12, 2003, 12:06:48 PM5/12/03

to

Peter Lairo aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:

>> The current debate over at bugzilla over letting the "User" (there that word
>> is again) put the sig where they want is another good example. There are
>> many people blocking this bug's implementation due to their personal
>> distaste for the bug itself. Our business (as an example) with over 200
>> seats will not use an email client that won't post the sig in a
>> "business-centric" position.

If your "business" isn't willing to learn how to do things as it is
mostly regarded as "right", don't whine.

> Here's the bug for anyone that would be gracious enough to submit a patch:

...but hopefully it won't get approved anyway.

> Replying with the "start my reply above the quoted text" pref on should
> prepend the signature above the quote text. (top)
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62429#c74

I "start my reply above the quoted text" and work my way down through
the text, adding remarks where useful, snipping what's useless in
context. And last but not least comes my signature (remember why it's
called so?).

Karsten,
near the the end of his tether ;-)
--
Freiheit stirbt | Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek:
Mit Sicherheit | http://fsayanne.tprac.de/

Bob Clary

unread,

May 12, 2003, 12:31:42 PM5/12/03

to James Graham

James Graham wrote:

>
> That list isn't comprehensive, but the idea is to make a clean
> seperation between the developer site mozilla.org and the
> user/distributer site mozilla.com (obviously the domain name is subject
> to change). That would benefit both groups of people, since their sites
> would be more focussed and so finding relevant information would be easier.
>
> james
>

That is a very interesting idea. To have the commercial related content
on a .com version of the site. Perhaps someone from mozilla staff would
comment on this?

unread,

May 12, 2003, 2:52:46 PM5/12/03

to

Ed Mullen schrieb:

> Simply from a credibility standpoint, I have doubts about any effort to
> improve the public perception of Mozilla when site operators can easily
> point to such a statistic. Yes, yes. I know. If we knew how many open
> bugs Microsoft had running on Windows XP it might be even more
> horrendous. But my point is public perception - marketing, if you will.

true - not to mention, that thousands of bugs every week end as an
"UNCO", nobody even LOOKS at, which doesn't motivate reporters to report
more problems.
Another problem are the so called "4xp" bugs - those very often prevent
people from updating from Netscape 4 to Mozilla. One of the most
important are news references and every kind of links directly to a news
message. Another is the performance or the so called "roaming".

--
Kai Lahmann

Geld aus geben für Software, wo man noch jeden Treiber einrichten muss?
Wofür gibt es Knoppix? Kostenlos. Schnell. Vorkonfiguriert.

Kai Lahmann

unread,

Next steps this summer will be to translate my FAQ into Spanish and
perhaps write CSS tutorials that show Mozilla strong points.

Pascal

--
FAQ Mozilla/Netscape 7 en français : http://pascal.chevrel.free.fr/
There are 10 kinds of people; those who understand binary, and those who
don't.

Bob Clary

unread,

May 12, 2003, 3:24:26 PM5/12/03

to

Kai Lahmann wrote:
>
> WONTFIX on TE bugs is imho a VERY bad idea. I would more like to see
> "later" for that. WONTFIX sounds a bit like "boycot this page" or
> towards the author "fuck off". I think we should NEVER stop to go on
> some authors nerves.
>

Later has been deprecated in bugzilla and should not be used in general.
Wontfix is just a signal to evangelists that they should not continue to
harrass a site that has either not responded or responded negatively.
They are fodder for customer action and for a later stage of evangelism
when we have achieved larger share and support when we can return to
them, reopen and approach them from a position of higher share with more
resources etc...

Bill Mason

unread,

May 12, 2003, 3:48:57 PM5/12/03

to

"Kai Lahmann" <mob...@3dots.de> wrote in message
news:b9os5b$fii$05$1...@news.t-online.com...

> WONTFIX on TE bugs is imho a VERY bad idea. I would more like to see
> "later" for that.

So if all those old bugs were tagged LATER tomorrow, what does that
accomplish?

> WONTFIX sounds a bit like "boycot this page" or
> towards the author "fuck off".

No,, it's a simple objective statement of resolution: the site has not been
fixed after the lapse of a reasonable amount of time, and is not expected to
be in the foreseeable future.

>I think we should NEVER stop to go on
> some authors nerves.

If that was to be the attitude of people doing TE bugs, I wouldn't care to
assist. Unless you can explain how 'working someone's nerves' is going to
get them to:

1) Consider Mozilla TE any sort of professionally conducted affair
2) Educate themselves on the issue as it applies to them
3) Spend their time and energy on correcting the issue at hand

I'd rather educate someone than piss them off, thx. WONTFIX acknowledges
that there will always be site owners who will not act in response to a TE
issue. That's their choice.

Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
http://www.accessibleinter.net/

Jacek Piskozub

unread,

May 12, 2003, 3:50:20 PM5/12/03

to

On 5/12/2003 11:16 AM, Bob Clary wrote:

>
> Great! I have added you to my "volunteer list". When we get a new
> Europe: Central owner you can coordinate with them.

Are you deposing me? You probably mean Europe: West.

Jacek

Jacek Piskozub

unread,

May 12, 2003, 3:54:36 PM5/12/03

to

On 5/12/2003 11:43 AM, James Graham wrote:

> Bob Clary wrote:
> <lots of stuff>
>
> A while ago, someone on Mozillazine suggested creating mozilla.com to
> complement mozilla.org.

One more thing. Part of the reason why web masters tend to ignore Tech
Evangelism letters is that we (at least not all of us) have no
respectable email addresses. By respectable I mean mozilla.org
netscape.com or anything clearly marking us as connected to the project.

Bob: could you think of adding us to mozilla.org? Some time ago Asa was
against, but thinks do change with time...

Jacek

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:00:13 PM5/12/03

to Pascal Chevrel

Pascal Chevrel wrote:
>
> I came to similar conclusions, I still file TE bugs and do a little
> triaging, but now my Tech evangelism work is as follow:
>
> - I created a Mozilla/Netscape 7 Faq as well as a Gecko-focused weblog
> in my language (I get about 5000 visitors per month, among which 30% IE
> users)
> - I create web pages that always look better in Gecko (but they do not
> look broken in IE), using gecko's better CSS/PNG support, alternate
> stylesheets etc.
> - I help beginners in web design forums and gently point them to Mozilla
> as a good tool with lots of add-ons that will ease their design work
> (which is absolutely true)
> - I help people having mozilla/netscape problems or questions in the
> fr.* and es.* hierarchy
> - I even put two banners on my site with "get Mozilla/get Netscape"
> icons ;-)
> - I talk about mozilla around me and I start saying to the friends who
> think that I am a computer Hotliner that I give free support on
> Mozilla/netscape but that I don't know anything about IE/OE, curiously
> some friends are starting to switch ;-)
>
> Next steps this summer will be to translate my FAQ into Spanish and
> perhaps write CSS tutorials that show Mozilla strong points.

I think these are all good ideas that we can all use on our own sites,
but the personal approach will only go so far I believe. However getting
commercial sites or web applications to provide a poorer experience for
the majority of their customers will not be a productive exercise I believe.

The FAQ is a resource we could use in evangelism as well. Would you
consider helping to develop such a FAQ for www.mozilla.org and sharing
development of the list with others in the community?

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:25:15 PM5/12/03

to Gashu

Bob Clary wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> This note is intended to jump start a discussion of where
> Mozilla Tech Evangelism stands today, and what we can do to
> make it more effective in the future.
>
>

> III. Tech Evangelism Bugs
>
> Tech Evangelism Components are currently organized by
> language/region and are geared towards triaging reported
> issues, contacting sites and convincing them to update their
> content. Many of the original owners and qa assignees for Tech
> Evangelism bugs are no longer available to handle these bugs.
> The current situation is summarized in
> <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tech-evangelism/components.html>.
>
> Is this organization appropriate? Should we combine
> components? Add new components? Who is available to take over
> the components in need of owners and qa assignees?

Overall I am for leaving the region based evangelism as is and
re-organize from time to time on as needed basis. Much of evangelism is
local and needs to be conducted in the local language as much as
possible. Now for a large region like Europe:West, it would make sense
to take someone's suggestion to have multiple owners if volunteers can
be found.

For Asian component, I would like to work with Gashu -- please assign
him as the default QA contact. Gashu and I talked about this when I was
attending the 4th Mozilla Japan Conference/Party last month in Tokyo.

- Kat

Owen T. Marshall

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:32:35 PM5/12/03

to

Based upon my attempts to evangelize users in my school district
(specifically, the system administrator[among others]), I have ran into
these arguments against it.

1. It doesn't support our needs.
The state of Kentucky requires all public schools to have Micro$oft
Proxy. Up until recently, we didn't do NTLM. This is one myth that must
be removed

2. It isn't supported
The state helpdesk only provides support for a tiny subset -- you
guessed it, Windows and Microsoft programs only.

If we were able to evangelize just one state, and convince them to use
open-source solutions in government... just imagine the market share boost.

As far as end users, our campaign has to overcome one significant obstacle:

3. I already have IE... why switch?

I can rattle off the reasons, but does an end user honestly care if IE
doesn't support technical feature foo? Probably not. We need to make a
client friendly browser -- to go the way of Phoenix. This way, I can say:

"Mozilla takes up less disk space, less RAM, and crashes half the time."

...instead of launching a conversation about the magic of the W3C.

Another problem... Microsoft products cost money. The licensing fee for
Windows is leverage we can use to get money-consious groups into Linux.
Since IE costs nothing, however, we can't get people here. We need a
hard figure -- to be able to provide a quick reason in support of
Mozilla that proves it saves money... any ideas :)

Assorted ramblings are done for now...

Owen

Katsuhiko Momoi

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:16:55 PM5/12/03

to

Mozilla.org can possibly provide a forwarding service for those
recognized as good contributors to evangelism. That is, we use
na...@mozilla.org for sending mail using mozilla.org mail server. When
replies are sent to na...@mozilla.org, that message is forwarded to
another non Mozilla address.

This could be an alternative to requesting a full-fledged Mozilla.org
account.

- Kat

Owen T. Marshall

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:41:30 PM5/12/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:
>
>
> Jacek Piskozub wrote:
>
>>
>> One more thing. Part of the reason why web masters tend to ignore Tech
>> Evangelism letters is that we (at least not all of us) have no
>> respectable email addresses. By respectable I mean mozilla.org
>> netscape.com or anything clearly marking us as connected to the project.
>>
>> Bob: could you think of adding us to mozilla.org? Some time ago Asa
>> was against, but thinks do change with time...
>>

Agreed. I can't count the number of times I have been asked what company
I was with. Noone takes us seriously because we lack a formal name to
back us up.

Perhaps evang could get their own domain name and assign email addresses
to evangelists

If things get worse I am just going to start saying I work for AOL/TW...
that should get em moving ;)
[Don't take above line seriously! --ED]

>
> That has been a problem but mozilla.org emails are only for staff. I,
> for example, do not have one.
>
> I still believe that the most effective approach is to convince
> customers to complain to sites regarding Mozilla / Gecko support. One
> possible idea is a Hall of Shame listing sites we have problems with
> including public feedback urls/emails but I am not completely sure that
> would be appreciated. Thoughts welcome.

Customer backlash would work... and, if we could show offenders that
customers consider this an issue, this campaign might work. We shouldn't
come across in an offensive manner, though... I might rethink "Hall of
Shame". Or just be sure to show the page in somewhat of a good humor.

Owen

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:45:02 PM5/12/03

to

Owen T. Marshall schrieb:

> The state of Kentucky requires all public schools to have Micro$oft
> Proxy. Up until recently, we didn't do NTLM. This is one myth that must
> be removed

most difficult task I think - many people still doen't even know, that
Mozilla isn't that buggy Netscape 4 any more!

> 3. I already have IE... why switch?

> "Mozilla takes up less disk space, less RAM, and crashes half the
> time."

Then you get "IE uses no disk space [as it's already there], uses less
RAM for me [as he only coults iexplore.exe] and never crashes for me [on
this problem we can "help" with <input type crash> *evilgrin*]".
What we need technically is:
Speed, Speed and uhm Speed. And maybe less RAM- and Disk-Usage

> ....instead of launching a conversation about the magic of the W3C.

W3C is an argument for authors, not for users

Pascal Chevrel

unread,

May 12, 2003, 4:57:49 PM5/12/03

to

Le 12/05/2003 22:45, Kai Lahmann a écrit :

> Owen T. Marshall schrieb:
>
>> The state of Kentucky requires all public schools to have Micro$oft
>> Proxy. Up until recently, we didn't do NTLM. This is one myth that
>> must be removed
>
>
> most difficult task I think - many people still doen't even know, that
> Mozilla isn't that buggy Netscape 4 any more!
>
>> 3. I already have IE... why switch?
>> "Mozilla takes up less disk space, less RAM, and crashes half the
>> time."
>
>
> Then you get "IE uses no disk space [as it's already there], uses less
> RAM for me [as he only coults iexplore.exe] and never crashes for me [on
> this problem we can "help" with <input type crash> *evilgrin*]".
> What we need technically is:
> Speed, Speed and uhm Speed. And maybe less RAM- and Disk-Usage
>
>> ....instead of launching a conversation about the magic of the W3C.
>
>
> W3C is an argument for authors, not for users
>

For the end-user the only arguments that I found effective were :
- popup blocker
- tabs (with a demonstration)
- antispam filltering system
- security
- themes
- better text zoom

pascal

Owen T. Marshall

unread,

May 12, 2003, 5:08:49 PM5/12/03

to

Kai Lahmann wrote:

> What we need technically is:
> Speed, Speed and uhm Speed. And maybe less RAM- and Disk-Usage
>
>> ....instead of launching a conversation about the magic of the W3C.
>
>
> W3C is an argument for authors, not for users

That was, until the advent of Firebird, one of the few arguments I could
think of ;)

You are right -- we need a zippy browser. It must float in the air. One
thing I hated was how our browser was never an "end-user product". The
roadmap, docs... everything avoided the description of "end-user
product". 95% of users _can't_ build or debug a program, and we wonder
why we only get a 5% market share. [1] Sure, I love nothing more than
using the DOM inspector and making XUL code. But my friends tell me I am
a masochist. The smooth edges of IE are nice (so they say...)

More rambling -- we need a way to make and ship Mozilla CD's _at cost_
(a-la Debian). Then evangelizing Mozilla would be simple.

Lets get AOL/TW to stop making thousands of "AOL FREE" disks and help us
out some ;)

Owen

[1] Numbers and concepts blatantly fabricated. Deal with it ;)

Bill Mason

unread,

May 12, 2003, 5:13:33 PM5/12/03

to

"Kai Lahmann" <mob...@3dots.de> wrote in message

news:b9p006$ard$02$1...@news.t-online.com...

> Bill Mason schrieb:
> > If that was to be the attitude of people doing TE bugs, I wouldn't care
to
> > assist. Unless you can explain how 'working someone's nerves' is going
to
> > get them to:
> >
> > 1) Consider Mozilla TE any sort of professionally conducted affair
>
> you don't need to get them to even know about Mozilla TE - you only need
> them to think that supporting Mozilla is good for THEM.

I would restate the question: and how exactly do you think getting them
angry with you accomplishes that?

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 12, 2003, 5:12:04 PM5/12/03

to

Bill Mason schrieb:

> I would restate the question: and how exactly do you think getting them
> angry with you accomplishes that?

I they get tons of mails because their page doesn't work with Mozilla,
they start to think, that there are many blocked Mozilla users

James Graham

unread,

May 12, 2003, 5:19:45 PM5/12/03

to

Owen T. Marshall wrote:

> You are right -- we need a zippy browser. It must float in the air. One
> thing I hated was how our browser was never an "end-user product". The
> roadmap, docs... everything avoided the description of "end-user
> product". 95% of users _can't_ build or debug a program, and we wonder
> why we only get a 5% market share.

The more I think about it, the more i'm convinced that 'mozilla.com' as
a semi-autonomous website would solve problems both for users and for
mozilla.org - mozilla.org could concentrate on the development process,
and mozilla.com could concentrate on providing resources for people
trying to use the browser / mail / whatever. That would be even more
important if the market share did go up since resources like
bugzilla.m.o are already suffering from having to deal with people who
just want to use the browser (what happens when the number of duplicate
bugs goes from 50% to 90%?).

James Graham

unread,

May 12, 2003, 5:12:00 PM5/12/03

to

Owen T. Marshall wrote:
>
> Customer backlash would work... and, if we could show offenders that
> customers consider this an issue, this campaign might work. We shouldn't
> come across in an offensive manner, though... I might rethink "Hall of
> Shame". Or just be sure to show the page in somewhat of a good humor.

The problem with such a page has already been pointed out in a
different context - who is going to download a browser when there's a
list of 3800 sites that won't work with it? I've seen professional
computing journalists berate both Mozilla and Opera for 'not having a
better rendering engine than IE', usually with some disclaimer that by
'better' they don't mean 'better at rendering standards complaint
pages', but 'faster at rendering pages designed for IE'.People want web
browsers to render pages and giving the erronous impression that Mozilla
can't do this isn't going to help anything. In addition, web designers
won't care - how many sites have a 'best viewable in any browser',
'valid html' or even 'WAI' button? In terms of business sites, almost
none. The clients aren't clued up enough to demand it (or just want
pixel perfect rendering or 'cool' animations) and the designers mostly
don't care, for reasons I don't claim to understand (it's interesting
that in the real world, things are different and companies are proud to
display awards that commend their business practices or accessiability).

Maybe web-designer education is key. There's clearly a hardcore group of
web designers who hate the lousy css support of IE. Sadly they don't
represent the people who do most of the big commercial web sites
(although, they might in 5 years time). Maybe evangelising the people
who write the websites will help - users will certianly continue to
complain about broken sites, but if authors can be convinced that
Mozilla + Netscape + Opera + Safari + Konqurer + whatever browser is
realeased next year (which is more like a 10% market share at present)
will /all/ be supported with the same changes to their methods , then
fewer sites will be designed broken and the number of broken sites will
naturally drop as they are outmoded and replaced.

Matthias Versen

unread,

May 12, 2003, 5:20:50 PM5/12/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:

>> Bob: could you think of adding us to mozilla.org? Some time ago Asa
>> was against, but thinks do change with time...
>>
>
> That has been a problem but mozilla.org emails are only for staff. I,
> for example, do not have one.
>
> I still believe that the most effective approach is to convince
> customers to complain to sites regarding Mozilla / Gecko support. One
> possible idea is a Hall of Shame listing sites we have problems with
> including public feedback urls/emails but I am not completely sure that
> would be appreciated. Thoughts welcome.

Why not use a "mozilla.com" domain as already suggested earlier ?
(and the Domain is already registered from AOLTW/Mozilla.org)

unread,

May 12, 2003, 6:11:22 PM5/12/03

to

Bill Mason schrieb:

> Complete fallacy. That's what an analysis of web logs proves or disproves.

you think, that the typical "IE rulez" moron knows how to use these logs? ;)

T.Veidt

unread,

May 12, 2003, 6:30:04 PM5/12/03

to

"Kai Lahmann" schrieb am 13.05.2003 00:11...

> Bill Mason schrieb:
>
>> Complete fallacy. That's what an analysis of web logs proves or
>> disproves.
>
>
> you think, that the typical "IE rulez" moron knows how to use these
> logs? ;)
>

companies with paid webmasters do, I suppose. :)

Brant Langer Gurganus

unread,

May 12, 2003, 7:23:12 PM5/12/03

to

Katsuhiko Momoi wrote:

> I agree with Jacek on this. If we have a volunteer like Jacek who has
> been doing this work for some time, Mozilla.org should honor that work
> by at least providing relay service so that Jacek can use mozilla.org
> address.

OpenOffice.org as well as sourceforge both manage to give relayed email
addresses to all users. If there is a technical reason for not doing
this, perhaps we can contact them.

--
Brant Langer Gurganus
Default QA Contact, Calendar
Default QA Contact, Tech Evangelism

Brant Langer Gurganus

unread,

May 12, 2003, 8:15:24 PM5/12/03

to

Another Idea from some chat room discussion: Mozilla certifications:
another idea: certified mozilla users?
certified mozilla support providers?
bc_meeting <irc://moznet/bc_meeting,isnick> yeah.
KaiL <irc://moznet/kail,isnick> "certified users" sould silly for me
brantgurga Microsoft provides certifications for their products
-->| RobbTiger (treb...@adsl-63-205-42-95.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net
<mailto:treb...@adsl-63-205-42-95.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net>) has joined
#evangelism <irc://moznet/%23evangelism>
KaiL <irc://moznet/kail,isnick> MCSE..
brantgurga http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/default.asp
<http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/default.asp>
zach <irc://moznet/zach,isnick> certified moz people?
brantgurga yeah, whatever works
KaiL <irc://moznet/kail,isnick>
http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/OfficeSpecialist/default.asp
<http://www.microsoft.com/traincert/mcp/OfficeSpecialist/default.asp>
there's really a "certified letter writer" ;)
EMeyer <irc://moznet/emeyer,isnick> Does Clippy have that certificate?
KaiL <irc://moznet/kail,isnick> lol
but really and as MS shows us:
certify people for everything - and managers will love you
brantgurga It'd be cool to see Mozilla Content Development
Certification required on a few classifieds
KaiL <irc://moznet/kail,isnick> Mozilla Content Development
Certification << hey, that's an Idea!
beat MS with their own weapons ;)
I thing we need 3:
"Mozilla Content Development Certification"
"Mozilla Advanced Using Certification"
"Mozilla Advanced Supporting Certification"
(that "Advanced" is nothing bit sounds good ;)
EMeyer <irc://moznet/emeyer,isnick> "Expert" is another good word to
throw on those.
brantgurga we would probably need official staff backing in this
idea/endeavour
bc_meeting <irc://moznet/bc_meeting,isnick> definitely
KaiL <irc://moznet/kail,isnick> the ""Mozilla Content Development
Expert" is somebody, who has an "Mozilla Content Development Certification"
brantgurga: as for many of todays ideas
brantgurga I'm gonna post this current discussion in the thread so it
gets archived for later reference
dark1 <irc://moznet/dark1,isnick> randomly laughs at the whole idea
then thinks arrgh they r serious
EMeyer <irc://moznet/emeyer,isnick> Great, my Clippy joke can be
immortalized for all time.
brantgurga dark1: what's the funny part? I think its a good idea

Bill Mason

unread,

May 13, 2003, 1:07:05 AM5/13/03

to

"Kai Lahmann" <mob...@3dots.de> wrote in message

news:b9p6ka$r5b$07$1...@news.t-online.com...

> Bill Mason schrieb:
> > Complete fallacy. That's what an analysis of web logs proves or
disproves.
>
> you think, that the typical "IE rulez" moron knows how to use these logs?
;)

Do you seriously think TE should devote resources to targeting that
stereotypical individual?

Bill Mason
Accessible Internet
http://www.accessibleinter.net/

Garth Wallace

unread,

May 13, 2003, 1:09:49 AM5/13/03

to

Kai Lahmann wrote:
> Bill Mason schrieb:
>
>> Complete fallacy. That's what an analysis of web logs proves or
>> disproves.
>
>
> you think, that the typical "IE rulez" moron knows how to use these
> logs? ;)

Even hobbyists know how to read logs. People like to read logs...if only
to find bizarre search strings to laugh at.

--
Mozilla 1.0 Guide: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/
Mozilla 1.0 FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/

End-user discussion and peer support:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.win32
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.mac
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.unix

James Graham

unread,

May 13, 2003, 8:41:42 AM5/13/03

to

David Bradley wrote:

> James Graham wrote:
>
>> Maybe web-designer education is key. There's clearly a hardcore group
>> of web designers who hate the lousy css support of IE. Sadly they
>> don't represent the people who do most of the big commercial web sites
>> (although, they might in 5 years time). Maybe evangelising the people
>> who write the websites will help - users will certianly continue to
>> complain about broken sites, but if authors can be convinced that
>> Mozilla + Netscape + Opera + Safari + Konqurer + whatever browser is
>> realeased next year (which is more like a 10% market share at present)
>
>

> I don't know how much of this is still true, but before I came to
> Netscape I worked for a company that did a lot of work creating web
> sites. The biggest gripe was the tedious work they had to do to get
> their site looking good both in IE and Netscape. And no, it wasn't the
> lack of this feature or that. They all realized they had to work to the
> least common denominator. It was things like a border on Netscape was an
> extra pixel thicker or a position was a couple of pixels over on
> Netscape. They always ended up with a lot of tedious work to get the
> site clean under IE and Netscape. They really pushed hard against the
> clients' desire to support Netscape.

So what's the solution? Make sure we always draw the same border sizes
as IE? If such trivial things break an application, then how will it
respond to text zoom, for example? Moreover what happens if I start
adjusting my user style sheet? Are designers even aware that such things
are possible? Even relatively standards compliant sites (ESPN.com,
hyatt's blog) break to varying extents when you use text zoom.

My point about IE and CSS is not that designers want more features, it's
more that the things that are implemented in IE are often broken, moreso
than in other browsers, (IE5 box model for example), which leads to
exactly the problems you describe. But you can't push against supporting
IE. So I guess if we want people to support us, we need to be helpful.
Tech Evengelism already does this, of course, but only after noticing a
broken site. Maybe that's too late. Would it be better to offer
consultancy services - "If you're having a problem getting your site to
work with Mozilla, email one of our Technical Experts who will be able
to offer advice"?

> We built app like web sites, not document style. So when things don't
> line up or size up right, it really looks awful.

In my limited experience, the problem with being a designer, is
something that looks "awful" to you is a minor glitch to everyone else -
you spend so much time analysing the appearance of something that you
loose all perspective of it's importance. See the b.m.o bug about the
vertical scroll bar only appearing when the document overflows, for
example. But this is totally beside the point...

> Again, maybe it's an
> old dead issue, but it was the biggest complaint I heard.

Sometimes I think that the web needs something like a cross browser,
standardised, XUL. HTML simply isn't designed for creating user
interfaces, any more than something like Docbook is. However, it's also
the only language that all browsers understand, so it gets used for
everything, even when it's basically inappropraite.

> David
>

cm

unread,

May 13, 2003, 9:09:15 AM5/13/03

to

"Karsten Düsterloh" <tr...@tprac.de> wrote in message
news:b9ogs5$l6a8e$1...@ID-14284.news.dfncis.de...
> Peter Lairo aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
> >> The current debate over at bugzilla over letting the "User" (there that
word
> >> is again) put the sig where they want is another good example. There
are
> >> many people blocking this bug's implementation due to their personal
> >> distaste for the bug itself. Our business (as an example) with over
200
> >> seats will not use an email client that won't post the sig in a
> >> "business-centric" position.
>
> If your "business" isn't willing to learn how to do things as it is
> mostly regarded as "right", don't whine.
>
> > Here's the bug for anyone that would be gracious enough to submit a
patch:
>
> ...but hopefully it won't get approved anyway.
>

YOU'RE attitude is exactly why Mozilla's market share is squandering around
2-5%. Hope you're happy with it.

--
cristo morlan

Chris Hoess

unread,

May 13, 2003, 8:49:12 AM5/13/03

to

In article <b9otp5$r7...@ripley.netscape.com>, Jacek Piskozub wrote:
>
> "Later" is deprecated. We use "Future" at present, but this is exactly
> the reason why we have so many open bugs.

Er, LATER is *gone*. LATER and REMIND got blown out of b.m.o within the
past two months or so.

--
Chris Hoess

David Bradley

unread,

May 13, 2003, 10:30:34 AM5/13/03

to

James Graham wrote:
> So what's the solution? Make sure we always draw the same border sizes
> as IE? If such trivial things break an application, then how will it
> respond to text zoom, for example? Moreover what happens if I start
> adjusting my user style sheet? Are designers even aware that such things
> are possible? Even relatively standards compliant sites (ESPN.com,
> hyatt's blog) break to varying extents when you use text zoom.

I imagine they're not aware. But I think this goes to the heart of the issue. People are trying to build apps out of web pages, and I personally don't think it's well suited for that. But that's what they do, and that's one source of the frustration for these people. They get it looking good on one browser and it looks bad on another. And unfortunately they generally choose to get it looking good under IE since it has the larger market share. The frustration then falls on Mozilla and the other browsers, right or wrong.

> In my limited experience, the problem with being a designer, is
> something that looks "awful" to you is a minor glitch to everyone else -
> you spend so much time analysing the appearance of something that you
> loose all perspective of it's importance. See the b.m.o bug about the
> vertical scroll bar only appearing when the document overflows, for
> example. But this is totally beside the point...

Right, but when a customer is paying a millions of dollars for a product, the look and feel is the first impression, and it gives an unpolished impression. And you probably know how picky UI guys are anyway ;-)

> Sometimes I think that the web needs something like a cross browser,
> standardised, XUL. HTML simply isn't designed for creating user
> interfaces, any more than something like Docbook is. However, it's also
> the only language that all browsers understand, so it gets used for
> everything, even when it's basically inappropraite.

I would definitely agree. Java is one solution, but it has its own set of problems. Web Services may fill in some of the holes as well. The complex administration services they were trying to build on the web, just didn't fit well with what HTML provided. Unfortunately because of the hype the client was willing to consider alternatives, such as moving the more complex administration operations away from HTML and leaving the end user services in HTML.

David

Jay Garcia

unread,

May 13, 2003, 11:11:46 AM5/13/03

to

On 05/13/2003 9:57 AM, Bob Clary wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Tom wrote:
>
>>
>> This might sound a little childish but then a lot of things are.. but
>> how about some form of award or rollcall for sites that make the effort
>> to fixed their Mozilla bugs? I'm not talking anything big just a nice
>> PNG linking to a mention on mozilla.org. Similar to w3c's compliance
>> icons. This way developers could let people know they've put the effort
>> in to support Mozilla users and perhaps get something from it themselves.
>
> That is a good idea and not childish at all.
>>
>> An award system for evangilists might work.. a little like reviewer
>> ratings on shopping sites, WU counts on SETI, knowledge ratings on tech
>> support sites or seller ratings on eBay.. make it more fun to promote
>> Mozilla.. turn it into a game/competition. There are a lot of kids out
>> there with a lot of time on their hands we should be trying to get them
>> involved.
>>
>
> Also a good idea to acknowledge people who devote time to Tech
> Evangelism. I have been remiss in this.
>
> Not sure about the game stuff. Whatever we do should always be
> professional and not reflect poorly on mozilla.org. For that we need
> dedication, communication skills and some degree of professionality.
> Trying to "win" is a personal goal that may not be compatible.
>

I wholeheartedly agree on the subject of recognition for sites that
comply/cooperate.

And ... Since I host the Netscape UFAQ, I would be most inclined to
create a section announcing such recognition.

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Netscape News Server Volunteer Administrator
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org http://www.UFAQ.org/text_version.html
Post To Group Only - No Email Please

Bob Clary

unread,

May 13, 2003, 10:57:23 AM5/13/03

to

Bob Clary

unread,

May 13, 2003, 11:02:37 AM5/13/03

to

Kai Lahmann wrote:
>
> I think this is the ONLY thing, which needs to be done (and can be done)
> to solve the TE problems. We "only" need 20% (4times of what we have
> now) and about every website will get updated faster as you can close
> the TE bugs. Currently we have exactly no argument, why they should do
> anything, even read the mails.
>
> How to help increasing the marget share?
> 1. create pages, where you can see, that Mozilla is better than MSIE or
> Netscape 4. This needs to be done on pages, many people visit! For
> example netscape.com's Community pages must look way better in Moziulla
> and must look broken in MSIE. For this web standards doesn't matter -
> nice looking features only do.

I think that showing that Mozilla is better than Internet Explorer in
CSS, XML, DOM, etc support is an important thing. Cross Browser
implementations are good for reuse but do little to education people on
the limitations of IE.

This however is not something you can get accomplished in a
business-centric, money earning site.

We can however use this approach to convince web developers.

> 2. fix bugs that matter - nice to see 500 new features, but until we
> have around 500 crashers, 150 datalosses and unfixed bugs with hundreds
> of votes this will have 0 effect

Yes. We need to make sure that the important bugs are fixed. However,
out of all the bugs that are filed, only a certain number can be fixed
in any given cycle. How do we determine those that are "Must Fix" for a
given release that will improve the situation overall and not just
respond to a vocal subgroup?

> 3. make Mozilla known to people out there - why do I never see "get
> Netscape 7" or "get Mozilla" banners out there, as it was in old
> browserwar days?
>

I think that kind of approach is kind of old hat but could be wrong.

Gashu

unread,

May 13, 2003, 12:50:35 PM5/13/03

to Katsuhiko Momoi

On 2003/05/13 5:25, Katsuhiko Momoi wrote:
> For Asian component, I would like to work with Gashu -- please assign
> him as the default QA contact. Gashu and I talked about this when I was
> attending the 4th Mozilla Japan Conference/Party last month in Tokyo.

My pleasure. I've been a themer for a year and a half or so, and been
focusing on the standard compliant rendaring(expression?) ability of
Moz/Gecko. As I like to feel something new of Moz and web itself. And
now I think I am ready to go for content-area.

Thanks,

--Gashu

--
Gashu
ga...@gashu.org
http://gashu.org/

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 13, 2003, 2:52:10 PM5/13/03

to

David Bradley schrieb:

> We built app like web sites, not document style. So when things don't

> line up or size up right, it really looks awful. Again, maybe it's an

> old dead issue, but it was the biggest complaint I heard.

the problem is totally gone with Mozilla/Netscape 7, but this MUST been
told to the authors wherever possible. I still see many many users, who
say "never again Netscape after Netscape 4"!

Henri Sivonen

unread,

May 13, 2003, 3:01:26 PM5/13/03

to

In article <b9p0bu$ard$02$2...@news.t-online.com>,
Kai Lahmann <mob...@3dots.de> wrote:

> Bob Clary schrieb:
> > However getting
> > commercial sites or web applications to provide a poorer experience for
> > the majority of their customers will not be a productive exercise I
> > believe.
>
> that's why I called Netscape.com as an example. If this isn't the page,
> where you can start with such a think, which is it?

You could say the same about www.mozilla.org. Evangelizing issues:

* Make the site look pretty. (Yeah, yeah. I know getting rid of
the murky color scheme and the ugly title font is a taboo.)

- Convince decision-makers that it is OK for the pages to look
different and less pretty in Netscape 4.x than in Mozilla.

* Make the front page validate with the W3C validator:
Get the HTTP charset corrected. In practice this requires switching
to apache with contributor-writable .htaccess files. (No one knows
how to configure the old Netscape server.)

--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/hsivonen/
Mozilla Web Author FAQ: http://mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 13, 2003, 2:55:38 PM5/13/03

to

Bob Clary schrieb:

> How do we determine those that are "Must Fix" for a
> given release that will improve the situation overall and not just
> respond to a vocal subgroup?

at first we have the votes. Then the most common browser from where uses
come to Mozilla is Netscape 4, so this "4xp"-Bugs are the next "Must
Fix" (Message-Links in News!)

> I think that kind of approach is kind of old hat but could be wrong.

People doesn't know, that Mozilla/Netscape 7 exist, still there are many
"what? Netscape 4 isn't the lastest from that crap compaly any more?"

James Graham

unread,

May 13, 2003, 3:09:13 PM5/13/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:
>
>
> Kai Lahmann wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this is the ONLY thing, which needs to be done (and can be
>> done) to solve the TE problems. We "only" need 20% (4times of what we
>> have now) and about every website will get updated faster as you can
>> close the TE bugs. Currently we have exactly no argument, why they
>> should do anything, even read the mails.
>>
>> How to help increasing the marget share?
>> 1. create pages, where you can see, that Mozilla is better than MSIE
>> or Netscape 4. This needs to be done on pages, many people visit! For
>> example netscape.com's Community pages must look way better in
>> Moziulla and must look broken in MSIE. For this web standards doesn't
>> matter - nice looking features only do.
>
>
> I think that showing that Mozilla is better than Internet Explorer in
> CSS, XML, DOM, etc support is an important thing. Cross Browser
> implementations are good for reuse but do little to education people on
> the limitations of IE.

So, some sort of well promoted "Mozilla Playground", that shows off the
things the Mozilla can acomplish? I know some of this already exists
but, like so much of the advocacy documents on mozilla.org, it's hard to
find unless you know it's there. I'm sure that there would be plenty of
people willing to contribute to that.

There are other under promoted aspects of Mozilla too. I suspect a lot
of academic institutions would be interestred in the mathML support, for
example, but just browsing the web, you'd never notice it existed. SVG
support is also promising in terms of a cool-standards-feature. I know
the implementation's not quite there yet, but if the rewrite branch
could get checked in to the trunk, and bugs in existing features could
be fixed, it might be possible to start building it by default (there
are of course still licensing issues for libart...) even without some of
the advanced features like animation working.

> This however is not something you can get accomplished in a
> business-centric, money earning site.
>
> We can however use this approach to convince web developers.
>
>> 2. fix bugs that matter - nice to see 500 new features, but until we
>> have around 500 crashers, 150 datalosses and unfixed bugs with
>> hundreds of votes this will have 0 effect
>
>
> Yes. We need to make sure that the important bugs are fixed. However,
> out of all the bugs that are filed, only a certain number can be fixed
> in any given cycle. How do we determine those that are "Must Fix" for a
> given release that will improve the situation overall and not just
> respond to a vocal subgroup?

Yes, the problem is that bugzilla distorts reality. A lot of "must fix"
bugs are actually new features. There are a lot of "new features" that
would make the product much better for certian groups of people (the
NTLM authentication for example is a big win for business users). So not
all the 'important' bugs are just crash bugs. And people never vote for
crash bugs, they just assume that they'll get fixed. Moreover, we could
argue all day about the 'most important' bugs that need to be fixed.

But this is beside the point anyway, since the only sure way to get your
'500 most important bugs' fixed is to submit patches.

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 13, 2003, 3:12:20 PM5/13/03

to

James Graham schrieb:

> So, some sort of well promoted "Mozilla Playground", that shows off the
> things the Mozilla can acomplish? I know some of this already exists
> but, like so much of the advocacy documents on mozilla.org, it's hard to
> find unless you know it's there. I'm sure that there would be plenty of
> people willing to contribute to that.

http://mozilla.linuxfaqs.de/darst ? ;)

> (there are of course still licensing issues for libart...)

I thought libart got dropped?

> There are a lot of "new features" that
> would make the product much better for certian groups of people (the
> NTLM authentication for example is a big win for business users).

features other browsers have, but Mozilla doesn't are more important
than features no browser has. For me there are some things fixed in
Mozilla Firebird which are imho very important:
-> context menu on bookmark items
-> middle clicking a bookmark openes it in a new tab
-> double clicking the tab-bar gives a new tab
-> configurable toolbar
...that are features that matter for many people, as they exist in other
browsers!

> So not
> all the 'important' bugs are just crash bugs. And people never vote for
> crash bugs, they just assume that they'll get fixed.

but they aren't really :(
since how lonk the crash on libporn.org exists?

> But this is beside the point anyway, since the only sure way to get your
> '500 most important bugs' fixed is to submit patches.

but maybe 1% of all users can do that. Others will just stay with their
working browser.

>
>>> 3. make Mozilla known to people out there - why do I never see "get
>>> Netscape 7" or "get Mozilla" banners out there, as it was in old
>>> browserwar days?
>>>
>>
>> I think that kind of approach is kind of old hat but could be wrong.
>>
>

Henri Sivonen

unread,

May 13, 2003, 3:28:14 PM5/13/03

to

In article <b9orn9$65s$02$1...@news.t-online.com>,
Kai Lahmann <mob...@3dots.de> wrote:

> Bob Clary schrieb:
> > I. Increase market share (and pressure) of Mozilla and other
> > Gecko-based browsers.

>
> I think this is the ONLY thing, which needs to be done (and can be done)
> to solve the TE problems.

> How to help increasing the marget share?
> 1.

> 2.

> 3.

4. Contribute code to Analog, Webalizer and AWStats that makes them
in their default configuration
a) Tally all Gecko-based browsers as one sum.
b) Recognize Opera, Safari, Konqueror, *Mac IE 5*, OmniWeb, iCab etc.
in order not to inflate the Windows IE numbers with spoofers and
Mac IE (which comes from a different codebase) and in order to
make readers of the reports realize that there is browser
diversity out there and using standards is the way to go instead
of developing to each browser separately.

5. Persuade thecounter.com and Google Zeitgeist to fix their reports
similarly.

6. Find out whether WebSideStory needs to be evangelized as well.

James Graham

unread,

May 13, 2003, 4:49:48 PM5/13/03

to

Kai Lahmann wrote:
> James Graham schrieb:
>
>> So, some sort of well promoted "Mozilla Playground", that shows off
>> the things the Mozilla can acomplish? I know some of this already
>> exists but, like so much of the advocacy documents on mozilla.org,
>> it's hard to find unless you know it's there. I'm sure that there
>> would be plenty of people willing to contribute to that.
>
>
> http://mozilla.linuxfaqs.de/darst ? ;)

Well maybe - it doesn't want to load. It also has linux in the domain
name and is impossible to find - there needs to be a centraliesed, easy
to find resource. I also realised that the potential to advocate
technologies like XUL and XBL for companies to use in intranet systems
is also immense - easy to develop and deploy, web like systems but with
proper user interfaces. There *must* be loads of oragnaisations who'd
benefit from that. Are there any good examples of demo apps where, say,
and XUL interface talks to a database on the back end?

>> (there are of course still licensing issues for libart...)
>
>
> I thought libart got dropped?

GDI+ or libart on windows, libart on linux (+other platforms, I assume).

>> There are a lot of "new features" that would make the product much
>> better for certian groups of people (the NTLM authentication for
>> example is a big win for business users).
>
>
> features other browsers have, but Mozilla doesn't are more important
> than features no browser has. For me there are some things fixed in
> Mozilla Firebird which are imho very important:

But Mozilla/Browser = /the/ Mozilla browser post 1.4. So they are
already fixed from that point of view.

Of course there are other UI issues with Moz/Browser (like the ability
to set helper app prefs, but the inability to change them later)

> ...that are features that matter for many people, as they exist in other
> browsers!
>
>> So not all the 'important' bugs are just crash bugs. And people never
>> vote for crash bugs, they just assume that they'll get fixed.
>
>
> but they aren't really :(
> since how lonk the crash on libporn.org exists?

Do you mean http://www.libpr0n.com? Or some other site (that DNS doesn't
resolve). libpr0n doesn't crash for me (unless I have to do something
special).

>> But this is beside the point anyway, since the only sure way to get
>> your '500 most important bugs' fixed is to submit patches.
>
>
> but maybe 1% of all users can do that. Others will just stay with their
> working browser.
>

But that's not true. Most users will stay with what they are given,
regardless. I've never heard an end user complain that IE sucks, even
though it clearly does in many ways (and not just it's rendering
deficiencies - I've had to explain to people that they can right click
bookmarks to edit them, the 'advanced' prefs tab is a disorganised mess
of unrelated options, and so on)

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 13, 2003, 5:09:43 PM5/13/03

to

James Graham schrieb:

> Well maybe - it doesn't want to load.

yes - I'm hunting the admin..

> It also has linux in the domain name

I can also gibe it a 3dots.de-Domain ;)

> is impossible to find

that's more the problem. Maybe we can use that as a base for out
mozilla.com project?

Bob Clary

unread,

May 16, 2003, 12:17:03 PM5/16/03

to Gervase Markham

Gervase Markham wrote:

By that standard though, we would never used FIXED to resolve a TE bug
either, since it's not us fixing it.

Daniel Wang

unread,

May 19, 2003, 6:30:43 PM5/19/03

to

Kai Lahmann wrote:
> true - not to mention, that thousands of bugs every week end as an
> "UNCO", nobody even LOOKS at, which doesn't motivate reporters to report
> more problems.

I'm sorry to hear that's your preception of the countless hours QA staff
and volunteers have put in bug triaging.

No response from anyone else within days after a bug is filed does not
mean nobody has "looked" and "consider" the bug. There maybe many
reasons why QAs pass the bugs: it looked like a dupe but QAs were just
lazy to put DUPEME in status whiteboard, the QAs could not reproduce it,
the QAs didn't have time to produce a testcase, etc. etc. etc. A QA's
responsibility is to screen bugs and make sure the report is useful to
the engineers when it is confirmed, not "I'll just say something useless
to indicate someone has read this report and hopefully keep the bug
reporter happy".

And certainly the lack of response from many bug reporters and the # of
duplicates don't "motivate QAs to screen more bug reports"

Daniel Wang

unread,

May 19, 2003, 6:35:44 PM5/19/03

to

Ed Mullen wrote:
> I think the perception IS a big deal. Assuming, of course, that the
> objective is to cast Mozilla (the product and project) in a positive
> light and to compete with like products in the marketplace. If not, of
> course, the whole discussion is moot.
>
> The thing that any company has going for it over an open-source effort
> like this (no matter what the validity or advantages of the actual
> product) is the ability (via dollars) to market it in a positive light.
>
> Evangelism is a nifty (and seemingly lofty and benign) term for
> marketing. I'd like to see the effort succeed but I doubt it will if,
> in public venues (such as this), such poorly constructed messages are so
> visibly promulgated.
>
> But, of course, in such an egalitarian effort, no one is actually /in
> charge of/ (meaning, it's their job) marketing the product. So, we all
> just shoot messages to and fro on these news groups in the hopes that
> the masses will somehow be enlightened. Lofty ideal, silly in practice.
>
> This random, periodically silly, stuff is not necessarily a bad thing.
> It's actually a major reason why I like Mozilla. I like contrary things
> like this. And I take the time to try to reason through this stuff
> because I really like Mozilla as a piece of software (I'm avoiding
> calling it a /product/ for obvious reasons) and want it to continue its
> existence.
>
> But! If there is a marketplace objective to be achieved, someone needs
> to be charged with achieving it, there needs to be a concerted,
> carefully crafted, competitively produced effort to do so. Blasting out
> a message noting that there are 38,000 open bugs is just plain
> counterproductive. Perception is reality in the marketplace despite
> whatever the rationale is that could explain away that statistic.

Well, mozilla.org has no PR and I doubt it will change anytime soon.
Also, mozilla.org is an open community and it will be even more
counterproductive if everyone needs to consult the PR before posting
anything to mozilla.org site and forums.

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 19, 2003, 6:33:04 PM5/19/03

to

Daniel Wang wrote:
> And certainly the lack of response from many bug reporters and the # of
> duplicates don't "motivate QAs to screen more bug reports"

today I saw something totally different on this: I've mailed to all the
91 UNCOs in TE - this is now 21 hours ago. Now there are 55 bugs left,
on all the others somebody reacted (very often to say it's fixed).

Daniel Wang

unread,

May 19, 2003, 7:09:07 PM5/19/03

to

Owen T. Marshall wrote:
> Bob Clary wrote:
>> Jacek Piskozub wrote:
>>>
>>> One more thing. Part of the reason why web masters tend to ignore
>>> Tech Evangelism letters is that we (at least not all of us) have no
>>> respectable email addresses. By respectable I mean mozilla.org
>>> netscape.com or anything clearly marking us as connected to the project.
>>>
>>> Bob: could you think of adding us to mozilla.org? Some time ago Asa
>>> was against, but thinks do change with time...
>
> Agreed. I can't count the number of times I have been asked what company
> I was with. Noone takes us seriously because we lack a formal name to
> back us up.

why would that be important?

>> That has been a problem but mozilla.org emails are only for staff. I,
>> for example, do not have one.
>>
>> I still believe that the most effective approach is to convince
>> customers to complain to sites regarding Mozilla / Gecko support. One
>> possible idea is a Hall of Shame listing sites we have problems with
>> including public feedback urls/emails but I am not completely sure
>> that would be appreciated. Thoughts welcome.
>
> Customer backlash would work... and, if we could show offenders that
> customers consider this an issue, this campaign might work. We shouldn't
> come across in an offensive manner, though... I might rethink "Hall of
> Shame". Or just be sure to show the page in somewhat of a good humor.

I agree it will be the most effective way. Approach TE sites as site
customers, not as Mozilla fan or something like that.

I also think users should be encouraged to contact site support first
when they encounter a non-crashing problem, and then file a bug report.

Brant Langer Gurganus

unread,

May 19, 2003, 8:59:31 PM5/19/03

to

Daniel Wang wrote:

> Kai Lahmann wrote:
>
>> true - not to mention, that thousands of bugs every week end as an
>> "UNCO", nobody even LOOKS at, which doesn't motivate reporters to
>> report more problems.
>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that's your preception of the countless hours QA
> staff and volunteers have put in bug triaging.
>

This brings up an idea for Bugzilla. Perhaps a bug view count?

--
Brant Langer Gurganus
Default QA Contact, Calendar
Default QA Contact, Tech Evangelism

Owen T. Marshall

unread,

May 19, 2003, 9:07:19 PM5/19/03

to

Daniel Wang wrote:
> Owen T. Marshall wrote:
>
>> Bob Clary wrote:
>>
>>> Jacek Piskozub wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more thing. Part of the reason why web masters tend to ignore
>>>> Tech Evangelism letters is that we (at least not all of us) have no
>>>> respectable email addresses. By respectable I mean mozilla.org
>>>> netscape.com or anything clearly marking us as connected to the
>>>> project.
>>>>
>>>> Bob: could you think of adding us to mozilla.org? Some time ago Asa
>>>> was against, but thinks do change with time...
>>
>>
>> Agreed. I can't count the number of times I have been asked what
>> company I was with. Noone takes us seriously because we lack a formal
>> name to back us up.
>
>
> why would that be important?

I have no clue. The assumptions made by many people is that the only
_legit_ group is one backed up with cash. I spent many hours on email
(and eventually *on the phone*) AmeriTrade in an attempt to triage a
streamer problem.

The only problem -- what the hell do I say I am to these people? I am
not a true TE QA... and I don't work for Mozilla/Netscape/AOLTW. Typical
exchange:

<Me> Hi, I am Owen Marshall, with Mozilla Tech Evangelism. (reads off TE
form letter)
<Them> Ok... what company are you with?
<Me> Company... Well, I am a community member working to help sites
better support Mozilla
<Them> So, your company is... Mozilla?
<Me> Uh... no, I don't really have one...
<Them> Your position?
<Me> I do QA work.
<Them> So, your position is QA engineer?
<Me> Uh, no... I don't really have one...

They tended to ignore me at this point. mal...@bardstowncable.net had
little clout.

Perhaps TE could get some sort of actual position, so we can at least
say "My name is Owen Marshall <ow...@mozilla.org(/com)> and I am with
Mozilla Tech Evangelism". Then I may have a shot at solving an issue.

>
>>> That has been a problem but mozilla.org emails are only for staff. I,
>>> for example, do not have one.
>>>
>>> I still believe that the most effective approach is to convince
>>> customers to complain to sites regarding Mozilla / Gecko support. One
>>> possible idea is a Hall of Shame listing sites we have problems with
>>> including public feedback urls/emails but I am not completely sure
>>> that would be appreciated. Thoughts welcome.
>>
>>
>> Customer backlash would work... and, if we could show offenders that
>> customers consider this an issue, this campaign might work. We
>> shouldn't come across in an offensive manner, though... I might
>> rethink "Hall of Shame". Or just be sure to show the page in somewhat
>> of a good humor.
>
>
> I agree it will be the most effective way. Approach TE sites as site
> customers, not as Mozilla fan or something like that.
>
> I also think users should be encouraged to contact site support first
> when they encounter a non-crashing problem, and then file a bug report.

This could cut down on our workload quite a bit =-) Customer backlash is
more effective than me sending letters.

How about that as a new step in TE bugs? "Step 1. Contact the webmaster
and report the incompatibility yourself" or the like.

Owen

Gervase Markham

unread,

May 20, 2003, 8:25:46 AM5/20/03

to

Bill Mason wrote:

> "Gervase Markham" <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote in message
> news:baa7j2$l9...@ripley.netscape.com...
>
>>Common 'bugs' marked INVALID or WONTFIX in the browser will still show
>>up on the mostfreq page, which prevents a lot of dupes. But the point is
>>that, in this case, the bug is neither INVALID or WONTFIX (at least,
>>it's not us WONTFIXing it.)
>
> By that standard though, we would never used FIXED to resolve a TE bug
> either, since it's not us fixing it.

Yeah, OK... I expressed myself wrong. WONTFIX is bad, because it's not
necessarily true that it won't be fixed - we just need to give them more
good reasons for fixing it :-)

Gerv

Gervase Markham

unread,

May 20, 2003, 8:28:39 AM5/20/03

to

> Perhaps TE could get some sort of actual position, so we can at least
> say "My name is Owen Marshall <ow...@mozilla.org(/com)> and I am with
> Mozilla Tech Evangelism". Then I may have a shot at solving an issue.

The ideal thing here, if it were possible, would be for Bob to arrange
some sort of "Tech Evangelism Deputy" programme out of Netscape, so you
could say:

"My name is Owen Marshall, I'm with Netscape's Site Compatibility
Assistance Programme, owen.m...@netscape.net ."

Obviously there are issues here, and Bob would need to only give this
ability to people he trusted, and you wouldn't get paid, but it would be
a way of getting some more credibility to your approaches.

Gerv

Bob Clary

unread,

May 22, 2003, 12:43:51 AM5/22/03

to

This note is a follow up to the earlier discussion regarding Site
Evangelism only. I am still working up a document on the more general
aspects of Mozilla Tech Evangelism.

Please read the attached, provide positive or negative feedback and
please sign up to help by either replying to this post or emailing me
directly.

changes.html

Kai Lahmann

unread,

May 22, 2003, 8:21:09 AM5/22/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:
> Please read the attached, provide positive or negative feedback and
> please sign up to help by either replying to this post or emailing me
> directly.

1. you miss italian (the author of the Berlusconi-bug said, he does some
TE in Italy).

changes
1. how to replace them? It would be rather good to have a way to find
out, what's wrnong here, without reading all comments (just for testing,
if it's fixed)
2. contact-missing is also a very common problem (maybe 3. helps on this)
4. we need to make clear, what's important. I thing pages explaining how
to write HTML using examples, which are not working in Mozilla are
_very_ important, maybe more than every high-traffic-page, as they
generate new problems.

Gervase Markham

unread,

May 22, 2003, 8:48:05 AM5/22/03

to

Good stuff :-) One comment:

> wontfix
>
> Use |wontfix| in Status whiteboard instead of WONTFIX resoluton to
> mark sites which are not responsive.

Why is this status whiteboard marker not called "not-responsive"? :-)
All the others seem named after what they mean...

> technote-needed
>
> Retain the |technote-needed| status whiteboard marker to identify
> needed support documentation.
>
> plugin
>
> Used to replace plugin component
>
> author
>
> Used to replace authors component

Gerv

Bob Clary

unread,

May 22, 2003, 9:07:56 AM5/22/03

to Gervase Markham

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Good stuff :-) One comment:
>
>> wontfix
>>
>> Use |wontfix| in Status whiteboard instead of WONTFIX
>> resoluton to
>> mark sites which are not responsive.
>
>
> Why is this status whiteboard marker not called "not-responsive"? :-)
> All the others seem named after what they mean...
>

hmmm, cause I am lazy and don't want to type "not-responsive" ? Or
perhaps because "wontfix" has become my internal representation for
these sites (at least the polite version). I considered that a sw of
wontfix might be confusing with respect to the status resolution wontfix
but couldn't think of a short sw I really liked better than wontfix.

suggestions for a short sw for this? or we could go with not-responsive
if it is agreeable with everyone. It is certainly clear as to meaning.

Bob Clary

unread,

May 22, 2003, 9:19:28 AM5/22/03

to Kai Lahmann

Kai Lahmann wrote:

>
> 1. you miss italian (the author of the Berlusconi-bug said, he does some
> TE in Italy).

Thanks. Added to my list.

>
> changes
> 1. how to replace them? It would be rather good to have a way to find
> out, what's wrnong here, without reading all comments (just for testing,

I agree that some diagnostic sw would be useful but the current set is
unwieldy and not really used. I am open to suggestions for a limited set.

> if it's fixed)
> 2. contact-missing is also a very common problem (maybe 3. helps on this)

I think so.

> 4. we need to make clear, what's important. I thing pages explaining how
> to write HTML using examples, which are not working in Mozilla are
> _very_ important, maybe more than every high-traffic-page, as they
> generate new problems.
>

yes. I want to address this type of issue in a related document which
covers many of the other suggestions made to the original post. Tech
Evangelism is really more than just site evangelism and I would like to
see us work together with other projects.

Karsten Düsterloh

unread,

May 22, 2003, 9:46:19 AM5/22/03

to

Bob Clary aber hob zu reden an und schrieb:
[not-responsive or wontfix]

> suggestions for a short sw for this?

In order of length:

deaf
blind
unteachable
inresponsive
unconvincable
uncooperative

Karsten
--
Freiheit stirbt | Fsayannes SF&F-Bibliothek:
Mit Sicherheit | http://fsayanne.tprac.de/

Eric

unread,

May 22, 2003, 10:25:05 AM5/22/03

to

Bob Clary wrote:

> Component Recommendations
>
> Based upon current participation, I recommend the following
> components. If more active participation is found for particular
> languages, they can be added to this list and the bugs moved from
> International to a new component. If country based distinction
> needs to be made it can be done via the URL or via a comment in
> the status whiteboard.
>
> * Arabic
> * Asian (momoi at netscape dot com/gashu at gashu dot org)
> * Chinese (momoi at netscape dot com)
> * Czech
> * Dutch (Eric at ? dot ?)

Dear Bob, i sent you an e-mail for my proper bugmail address.
regards,

--
Eric

Henri Sivonen

unread,

May 23, 2003, 1:29:21 AM5/23/03

to

In article <bahk38$qr...@ripley.netscape.com>, Bob Clary <b...@bclary.com>
wrote:

> <strong>Recommendation:</strong> I think that using
> language based components for languages supported by
> active evangelists is better than the region-based
> approach.

Good. The region-based approach seemed strange to begin with and the
instructions were still language-oriented (all Hebrew sites to be filed
under "Middle-East" even if site located in the U.S. etc.).

> <li>
> Arabic
> </li>
> <li>

> Asian (momoi at netscape dot com/gashu at gashu dot
> org)

> </li>
> <li>

> Chinese (momoi at netscape dot com)

> </li>

How about "Other Asian" instead of just "Asian"? Even so, "Asian" is a
confusing name for a category because the word has at least three
plausible interpretations (US, UK, and geographical).

> English - excluding US English.

Why excluding US English? Is "US" here the georaphic US or really the
language variant? If a page is written using the US spelling and placed
on eg. a European server, would it be categorized as US English?

> International - to include all sites in languages not
> already listed as a component.

I suggest calling it "Other", since that's what is meant.

Bob Clary

unread,

May 23, 2003, 2:30:35 AM5/23/03

to Henri Sivonen

Henri Sivonen wrote:

>> <li>
>> Asian (momoi at netscape dot com/gashu at gashu dot
>> org)
>> </li>
>> <li>
>> Chinese (momoi at netscape dot com)
>> </li>
>
>
> How about "Other Asian" instead of just "Asian"? Even so, "Asian" is a
> confusing name for a category because the word has at least three
> plausible interpretations (US, UK, and geographical).
>

That is fine with me, but the final decision is Kat's. I will bring it
up with him.

>
>> English - excluding US English.
>
>
> Why excluding US English? Is "US" here the georaphic US or really the
> language variant? If a page is written using the US spelling and placed
> on eg. a European server, would it be categorized as US English?
>

More of a geographic US rather than pure en-US. I considered doing all
English in one component but it seemed to me that the overwhelming
majority would have been US geographic sites swamping out any
International English sites.

I am open to combining the two. What do other people think?

>
>> International - to include all sites in languages not
>> already listed as a component.
>
>
> I suggest calling it "Other", since that's what is meant.
>

Sounds ok to me.

Daniel Wang

unread,

May 23, 2003, 2:31:39 AM5/23/03

to

Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> English - excluding US English.
>
> Why excluding US English? Is "US" here the georaphic US or really the
> language variant? If a page is written using the US spelling and placed
> on eg. a European server, would it be categorized as US English?

how about English - N. American, English - European, English - Int'l ?
Anyway, we can't include a de-facto int'l language in a large group,
that would be unmanageable.

Sailfish

unread,

May 23, 2003, 1:16:56 PM5/23/03

to

Isn't Canada's English more like the Queen's?

--

Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org/
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org

Bob Clary

unread,

May 24, 2003, 3:36:07 AM5/24/03

to

> A related need is to get web site analytic software to report
> total Gecko percentages and not just specific branded versions
> of Gecko. By splitting our reported percentages across the
> multitude of browsers based upon Gecko we artificially
> decrease our reported market share.

I did some quick hacks to see what could be done in Analog 5.32.

By using a Browser Alias regular expression I was able change the Analog
reports to report by Gecko version rather than the distinct Mozilla,
Netscape, etc. However due to some distinctions in tree.c, it still
reported Phoenix, Galeon, etc as distinct browsers. By removing this
distinction, I was able to summarize most Gecko browsers under a single
statistic.

As you can see the generated reports for the "after" version are much
clearer as to the total Gecko percentage.

Suggestions for improvements to the Browser Alias welcome.

One thing that is clear is that organizations that release browsers
based upon Gecko should be more strict in following the user agent
guidelines.

browalias.txt

tree.c.diff

before.html

after.html