5 ms·

I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that shouldn't

by just2n 13y ago

I have to say that this article is actually quite terrible, as is the opinion that any option that might ever be confusing to a user is an option that shouldn't ship with the product. The thesis of the article is: "Well, we have met the enemy, and he is us.* In the currently shipping version, Firefox ships with many options that will render the browser unusable to most people, right in the main settings ui." The solutions offered? Kill it all with fire. I'm paraphrasing, of course. Problem: People today change some feature then have a "broken" browser (basically, they forgot to turn it back to the default, or they didn't realize they changed it in the first place). Solution: reset button, also notification to the user that "this page might not work correctly", some sort of an extension of how Chrome shows you that a popup and/or a cookie was blocked, based on your settings. Don't treat your users like idiots, just provide information that clears up certain odd states by explicitly informing them of something like: "The webpage you are viewing may not work correctly because the following options differ from their default values: 1. Enable automatic loading of images. 2. Enable JavaScript. These features of Firefox are essential for most webpages to run properly. If the webpage you are trying to access is behaving strangely or appears to be working incorrectly, <click here> to load the page with the default browser configuration." Done, and done. No removing useful features from the browser, no treating users like morons, but now I have a new, useful, awesome, self-debugging feature which is user friendly, and doesn't require a pesky IT guru's assistance navigating the sea of 10 trillion options.

skriticos2 13y ago
Why not just put it in the about:config page for FF? Casual users are unlikely to accidentially access this page as there is no GUI navigation to it. Though most casual users I know avoid GUI configuration all the same, so I don't really see the issue here.
- Zecc 13y ago
  UI discussion aside, changing the option on upgrade seems a little... impolite, to say the least.
  - JadeNB 13y ago
    That's the point that seems to be missed in the discussion: sure, let Mozilla shuffle options where they want, hopefully with some thought; but don't change the user's configuration. If you feel that it's absolutely necessary to do so, then pop up a big banner saying "We want to change your settings. May we?" To do otherwise is bordering-on-crapware-tactics rude.
- roel_v 13y ago
  It is, but the bug report in the OP is raging against it being there.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
vlasta2 13y ago
This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry at the application that it is not working. My experience shows that the more options an application has, the lazier the author was. What do you do as a software developer when there are two ways how to solve a problem? Ask the user which way to use? That is the wrong approach these days. The computer should not ask the user stupid questions. "Do you want to enable JavaScript?" is a stupid question for more than 98% of browser users. Instead of asking questions, software developers should invest the work to come with answers and "read the user's mind". Successful apps can do just that.
- keithpeter 13y ago
  "These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability." If we follow this thinking too far, we end up with a closed console like device, or Gnome 4 as parodied last April [1]. Surely there is a case for progressive revealing/enabling of advanced functions? In the UK, the Blackberry phones are very popular with teenagers because of BBM. This desire to access BBM even extends to students carrying two phones, one an old blackberry handset on wifi and the other an iPhone or whatever. You will find small groups in corners at lunchtime exploring the features of the handsets. Experts will coach those who know less. If I could get that level of peer tutoring going in Maths, I'd have my OBE in the bag quite soon! Users can increase their knowledge provided the unfolding of extra features is managed. [1] http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120402 http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120402
  - sp332 13y ago
    I don't think Gnome is a relevant example. They don't support adding functionality back that they've taken out, whereas Firefox users are encouraged to add all the functions they want via extensions. The downside of progressive functions in the base install is that the core Firefox team would have to support all the functions.
- 13y ago
pilif 13y ago
> Don't treat your users like idiots, just provide information that clears up certain odd states by explicitly informing them of something like you assume that users actually read dialogs presented by the software. This is unfortunately not a correct assumption.
voyou 13y ago
Those are terrible solutions, though. If a user has turned off JavaScript, there are basically two possibilities: if they turned it off accidentally, your solution will (in the best case scenario, where they understand the popup and realise they should click the reset button) temporarily break their browser and then fix it again; better then breaking it permanently, but not as good as not breaking it in the first place. On the other hand, if they turned JavaScript off intentionally, your solution will continually bother them asking them whether they want to turn JavaScript back on again. So your proposed solution actually works for no users at all.
maxhowell 13y ago
Sorry to be blunt, but it's clear you have never had to design or support a user-facing product. Anyone who has done either of these things will disagree with your base assumptions, ie. that users care about understanding their software, that they read warning texts, and that they don't mindlessly flip switches when trying to achieve unrelated goals.
sergeykish 13y ago
> Problem: People today change some feature then have a "broken" browser They forgot what is changed, how to return back, no reset is not a solution. Solution: Educate users, provide "Undo" and "Redo" buttons, highlight changed controls
Someone 13y ago
I am not planning on implementing that, but let's pretend I want to. When would that dialog come up? Attempt #1: show that dialog as soon as a page tries to load some JavaScript. Result (I'm guessing): dialog shows up on 99.9% of all web pages one visits (even for the nerdiest of nerds) Attempt #2: silently download the JavaScript to figure out whether it is 'benign' or 'evil'. Result: users complain that they pay for downloading stuff they do not want. Attempt #3: make that dialog less intrusive; do not require acknowledgment. Result: users get trained to overlook it; users who accidentally enable the mode will never figure out what happened to their browser. Attempt #4: a whitelist of allowed scripts. Problem: users will disagree about what should make it into the whitelist. Attempt #5: the JSBlock extension. This may have merit. So, if you want this feature, download it, or write it if it doesn't exist yet. If the API does not allow writing it, bicker Mozilla.
- SomeoneElsa 13y ago
  Understand that no dialog is necessary for such an idea to be implemented at all. Observe: <noscript> The webpage you are viewing may not work correctly because the following options differ from their default values: 1. Enable automatic loading of images. 2. Enable JavaScript. These features of Firefox are essential for most webpages to run properly. If the webpage you are trying to access is behaving strangely or appears to be working incorrectly, <a href="">click here</a> to load the page with the default browser configuration. </noscript>
  - Someone 13y ago
    1. who would insert that fragment in a page (and where, but let's ignore that)? I don't think you can expect sites to do it to make their site work with users who have JavaScript disabled (target audience is too small), so the browser must do it. How is the browser going to figure out whether to insert it? Also: how is that not a dialog? It presents a message to the user, and waits for a reply. I still think 'no JavaScript' is a niche feature that is best delegated to an extension that sports a whitelist or a blacklist of scripts to allow/forbid. A variation on Adblock would work fine (maybe, Adblock already can be used to blacklist JavaScript. If so, it is a matter of tweaking its UI)
camus 13y ago
> Don't treat your users like idiots That is exactly what Mozilla is doing , pushing down Javascript on everybody's throat. And marketing teams and advertisers are loving it. So much for their "dont track" stunt.

by just2n 13y ago

skriticos2 13y ago

Why not just put it in the about:config page for FF? Casual users are unlikely to accidentially access this page as there is no GUI navigation to it. Though most casual users I know avoid GUI configuration all the same, so I don't really see the issue here.

Zecc 13y ago
UI discussion aside, changing the option on upgrade seems a little... impolite, to say the least.
- JadeNB 13y ago
  That's the point that seems to be missed in the discussion: sure, let Mozilla shuffle options where they want, hopefully with some thought; but don't change the user's configuration. If you feel that it's absolutely necessary to do so, then pop up a big banner saying "We want to change your settings. May we?" To do otherwise is bordering-on-crapware-tactics rude.
roel_v 13y ago
It is, but the bug report in the OP is raging against it being there.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

vlasta2 13y ago

This was true 10 years ago. These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability. There is a growing group of people, who are scared to have conversation with their browser and make any informed decisions. They ignore such messages. Other people will change any setting they can find and then forget about it. Then they will be surprised and angry at the application that it is not working. My experience shows that the more options an application has, the lazier the author was. What do you do as a software developer when there are two ways how to solve a problem? Ask the user which way to use? That is the wrong approach these days. The computer should not ask the user stupid questions. "Do you want to enable JavaScript?" is a stupid question for more than 98% of browser users. Instead of asking questions, software developers should invest the work to come with answers and "read the user's mind". Successful apps can do just that.

keithpeter 13y ago
"These days, every additional setting the application has is a liability." If we follow this thinking too far, we end up with a closed console like device, or Gnome 4 as parodied last April [1]. Surely there is a case for progressive revealing/enabling of advanced functions? In the UK, the Blackberry phones are very popular with teenagers because of BBM. This desire to access BBM even extends to students carrying two phones, one an old blackberry handset on wifi and the other an iPhone or whatever. You will find small groups in corners at lunchtime exploring the features of the handsets. Experts will coach those who know less. If I could get that level of peer tutoring going in Maths, I'd have my OBE in the bag quite soon! Users can increase their knowledge provided the unfolding of extra features is managed. [1] http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120402 http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20120402
- sp332 13y ago
  I don't think Gnome is a relevant example. They don't support adding functionality back that they've taken out, whereas Firefox users are encouraged to add all the functions they want via extensions. The downside of progressive functions in the base install is that the core Firefox team would have to support all the functions.
13y ago

pilif 13y ago

> Don't treat your users like idiots, just provide information that clears up certain odd states by explicitly informing them of something like you assume that users actually read dialogs presented by the software. This is unfortunately not a correct assumption.

voyou 13y ago

Those are terrible solutions, though. If a user has turned off JavaScript, there are basically two possibilities: if they turned it off accidentally, your solution will (in the best case scenario, where they understand the popup and realise they should click the reset button) temporarily break their browser and then fix it again; better then breaking it permanently, but not as good as not breaking it in the first place. On the other hand, if they turned JavaScript off intentionally, your solution will continually bother them asking them whether they want to turn JavaScript back on again. So your proposed solution actually works for no users at all.

maxhowell 13y ago

Sorry to be blunt, but it's clear you have never had to design or support a user-facing product. Anyone who has done either of these things will disagree with your base assumptions, ie. that users care about understanding their software, that they read warning texts, and that they don't mindlessly flip switches when trying to achieve unrelated goals.

sergeykish 13y ago

> Problem: People today change some feature then have a "broken" browser They forgot what is changed, how to return back, no reset is not a solution. Solution: Educate users, provide "Undo" and "Redo" buttons, highlight changed controls

Someone 13y ago

I am not planning on implementing that, but let's pretend I want to. When would that dialog come up? Attempt #1: show that dialog as soon as a page tries to load some JavaScript. Result (I'm guessing): dialog shows up on 99.9% of all web pages one visits (even for the nerdiest of nerds) Attempt #2: silently download the JavaScript to figure out whether it is 'benign' or 'evil'. Result: users complain that they pay for downloading stuff they do not want. Attempt #3: make that dialog less intrusive; do not require acknowledgment. Result: users get trained to overlook it; users who accidentally enable the mode will never figure out what happened to their browser. Attempt #4: a whitelist of allowed scripts. Problem: users will disagree about what should make it into the whitelist. Attempt #5: the JSBlock extension. This may have merit. So, if you want this feature, download it, or write it if it doesn't exist yet. If the API does not allow writing it, bicker Mozilla.

SomeoneElsa 13y ago
Understand that no dialog is necessary for such an idea to be implemented at all. Observe: <noscript> The webpage you are viewing may not work correctly because the following options differ from their default values: 1. Enable automatic loading of images. 2. Enable JavaScript. These features of Firefox are essential for most webpages to run properly. If the webpage you are trying to access is behaving strangely or appears to be working incorrectly, <a href="">click here</a> to load the page with the default browser configuration. </noscript>
- Someone 13y ago
  1. who would insert that fragment in a page (and where, but let's ignore that)? I don't think you can expect sites to do it to make their site work with users who have JavaScript disabled (target audience is too small), so the browser must do it. How is the browser going to figure out whether to insert it? Also: how is that not a dialog? It presents a message to the user, and waits for a reply. I still think 'no JavaScript' is a niche feature that is best delegated to an extension that sports a whitelist or a blacklist of scripts to allow/forbid. A variation on Adblock would work fine (maybe, Adblock already can be used to blacklist JavaScript. If so, it is a matter of tweaking its UI)

camus 13y ago

> Don't treat your users like idiots That is exactly what Mozilla is doing , pushing down Javascript on everybody's throat. And marketing teams and advertisers are loving it. So much for their "dont track" stunt.