Identify influential developers worth involving

[Addy Osmani]

We briefly discussed this the other week and I think it might be useful to start thinking

about what developers we would like to invite to get involved with the project. 

Does anyone have suggestions they'd like to propose? We can of course invite devrels

from other browser vendors, but unsure of whether this would cause issues with browser

politics or not. There are certainly enough people we can invite outside of this group.

[Frances Berriman]

I think there might be some value in ironing out the general
trajectory before hand. It'll be easier to get the right kind of
people on board if we know what the plan is, in terms of our aims and
how we're going to go about it.

For example, we'll need to get across that we're not intending to
promote one browser over the other, and IE will be a preferred upgrade
path for a section of users, so devrel folks who are happy to not
necessarily champion their usual side would be best.

We'll basically be looking for people who can carry the message
clearly, so we could do with knowing what that is.

> --
> More at etherpad.mozilla.org/evergreen . Group at
> groups.google.com/d/forum/evergreen-the-web
>
>

[Addy Osmani]

+1 to all of that. I agree we should iron out some more of the details

beforehand.

--
Developer Programs Engineer

Chrome

[Chris Wilson]

I would suggest, particularly with the IE team, that we need to carefully define the messaging we want to have before we approach them.  It's pretty clear from the data that the biggest problem is IE users who don't (or can't) upgrade, and the IE guys' reaction to our trying to fix this problem is that of course we're trying to steal their users.  I do think we want to involve them sooner rather than later, but understand it's going to be challenging.  There are a few approachable people there, of course, like Rey Bango.

[Frances Berriman]

Okay.  So, we'll get on the messaging bit as a priority.  Alex, James and I have discussed the sort of tack we'd like to take for the user-facing side of things (un-savvy, unsure, etc.).  I'll get down our initial thinking in a doc for you guys by the end of tomorrow and we can go from there on that side of things.

To go with this we are going to identify a group of websites that cover the breadth of variety (app-y sites, info providers, news, social etc etc) and how we're thinking of presenting the prompts for those sites - how the user experience might play out.  Plus, what we would like to provide as a default if the site didn't want to, or couldn't, customise, plus some suggestions on what they could do if they do want to have some control.  This might also give us a hint about who we'd like to contact on the advocacy side.  I'll also publish a list of these sites, and it would be good to get any additional sites that you feel would benefit from getting an early view on how it might work for them.

F

[Chris Wilson]

Yup.

To be clear - *I* don't think this is an effort to steal IE's users; we just want to get users to stay up to date, and if users want to use *current* IE, great!  And that is consistent with IE's messaging over the last year or two (cf their "Kill IE6" efforts), so it should be a good fit; I just know it will be a touchy area.

[Addy Osmani]

Related: Alex, do we have a list of what we consider to be Evergreen browsers available?

[Frances Berriman]

Yeah, totally get it and agree completely.

It would be a much easier thing to do if we *were* just trying to switch users to one specific browser, but as it happens, I believe that direct upgrade to the next best browser, which in most cases will be the one you're already on, is best for retaining users through the process.  Unfortunately for IE, a lot of their users "next best" can't be on the IE track because of the OS upgrade requirement. Sucks, because it would be a lot easier for those people. :(

F

[James Weiner]

Agree on France's points - we need as little friction as possible, and introducing a *different* browser to someone just adds another factor to their potential confusion. The more familiarity we can have in the process the better. But yes, with some caveats around OS limitations.

I'm around tomorrow then away for a week in Italy, with no idea if I'll be online or not. If I am, I'll keep on pitching in.

James

[Paul Lewis]

I totally agree that we need to limit the confusion, but if it's a choice between staying on the same OS and getting a new browser vs. upgrading the OS to get the new version of the same browser then I would suspect the former would be far less confusing overall! :)

Absolutely agree that the story and messaging stuff is critical.

[Frances Berriman]

Absolutely. We couldn't in good conscience recommend an option that
requires an OS upgrade (technical constraints plus $$$). Anyway, as I
said, I'll jot all the stuff down on this topic that we've already
talked about and circulate shortly.

[Addy Osmani]

It would be a much easier thing to do if we *were* just trying to switch users to one specific browser, but as it happens, I believe that direct upgrade to the next best browser, which in most cases will be the one you're already on, is best for retaining users through the process.  Unfortunately for IE, a lot of their users "next best" can't be on the IE track because of the OS upgrade requirement. Sucks, because it would be a lot easier for those people. :(

Agreed and this is one of the reasons I feel it would beneficial to have a list of what we consider to be Evergreen. Although initially the idea of a regularly updating, modern browser is simple enough to convey, it becomes more complicated when we have to consider OS-level limitations. We want to ensure that we're not just saying "Hey, you're on a X-year old OS, IE7 is as good as it gets" because that's going to perpetuate the problem of the older browsers ticking around. On X-year old system, I'm hopeful that the IE team/MS would appreciate that Evergreen options might be more suitable if we're to continue to push the web forward.

[Addy Osmani]

To go with this we are going to identify a group of websites that cover the breadth of variety (app-y sites, info providers, news, social etc etc) and how we're thinking of presenting the prompts for those sites - how the user experience might play out.  Plus, what we would like to provide as a default if the site didn't want to, or couldn't, customise, plus some suggestions on what they could do if they do want to have some control.  This might also give us a hint about who we'd like to contact on the advocacy side.  I'll also publish a list of these sites, and it would be good to get any additional sites that you feel would benefit from getting an early view on how it might work for them.

This all sounds excellent. Looking forward to seeing the list of sites!

While you guys are focusing on the prompts and initial content, Paul L and I will be researching companies for the "going Evergreen" case study. Once we have significant notes/an initial doc for this ready, we'll circulate so we can try to maintain a consistent tone and message through the site. We'd love to make sure we're matching the language etc. you guys feel will be the most effective.

[Frances Berriman]

On 21 August 2012 11:10, Addy Osmani <ad...@google.com> wrote:

> Agreed and this is one of the reasons I feel it would beneficial to have a
> list of what we consider to be Evergreen. Although initially the idea of a
> regularly updating, modern browser is simple enough to convey, it becomes
> more complicated when we have to consider OS-level limitations. We want to
> ensure that we're not just saying "Hey, you're on a X-year old OS, IE7 is as
> good as it gets" because that's going to perpetuate the problem of the older
> browsers ticking around. On X-year old system, I'm hopeful that the IE
> team/MS would appreciate that Evergreen options might be more suitable if
> we're to continue to push the web forward.
>

I think Alex is going to make a matrix of what the paths will be,
because he'll need it for the script - we can probably make a shiny
version for explaining what's going on for everyone else. The end for
anyone should be something evergreen, no matter their browser at the
moment.

In the cases where you're on an OS where the next-best upgrade for the
browser you're on isn't a browser we're defining as "evergreen", I
think we'll recommend a switch a random better evergreen browser
available on that OS for free, as first "quick route". Again, this'll
be in the doc I'm putting together now.

[Frances Berriman]

On 21 August 2012 11:17, Addy Osmani <ad...@google.com> wrote:

> This all sounds excellent. Looking forward to seeing the list of sites!
>
> While you guys are focusing on the prompts and initial content, Paul L and I
> will be researching companies for the "going Evergreen" case study. Once we
> have significant notes/an initial doc for this ready, we'll circulate so we
> can try to maintain a consistent tone and message through the site. We'd
> love to make sure we're matching the language etc. you guys feel will be the
> most effective.
>
>

Sounds perfect. The large company upgrade path is the area we have
the least expertise in - we'll be concentrating on the individual
upgrade path, I guess, and messaging to those users. The corp side
definitely feels like it needs the case-study style sell.

[Alex Russell]

Will send out this list later today.

[Alex Russell]

The matrix is OS-based, sadly. Here's the rough outline. Note that all abbreviations are for the *latest* versions of these browsers. All old versions of any browser are by default not-evergreen and are therefore targets of our effort:

• WinXP & Vista: Chrome, FF, Opera  (no IE 10 for Vista!)
• Win 7 & 8: Chrome, FF, Opera, IE
  
• OS X 10.6: Chrome, FF, Opera (no Safari 6 for 10.6)
• OS X 10.7 & 10.8: Chrome, FF, Opera, Safari
• Ubuntu/SuSE: Chrome, FF (not sure about Opera)
• iOS: Safari, Chrome
• Android 2.x: FF, Opera
• Android 4.x: FF, Chrome, Opera

Notable:

• IE isn't on the list for either XP or Vista. Most people don't yet understand that IE 9 is the end of the line for Vista, and we don't ever want users on browsers that have been left behind. Even one version back is too far.
• Our recommendation to most Android users will be to switch.