6 ms·

> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible That's sounds weird. Why woul

> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible That's sounds weird. Why wouldn't they just make it opt-in on the "you've been updated" page? Or just bundle the extension?

azakai 11y ago
Almost all users of any popular browser are not tech savvy like you and I and other people here on Hacker News. They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier, overall, with it present by default. Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do like it.
- JadeNB 11y ago
  > They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. This sounds like an excuse that could justify withholding just about any choice from users. Why not have a first-run splash page with something like "Pocket is a really cool service that runs best when it's part of your Firefox. May we turn it on? [yes] [no] Don't worry, you can always change your mind later! [Read more about what Pocket does.]"
  - azakai 11y ago
    The real decision isn't made based on a guess like "it would sound complex". It is made by doing a user study - a test of actual users. That data guides the decision, and the data here showed users benefited more, on average, by bundling it, rather than having it be something the user needs to authorize and/or install.
    - ObviousScience 11y ago
      You keep saying "we tested!", but I don't think you understand how testing works or what you're actually claiming to have tested versus what other people are talking about. You see, what you tested is the behavior of users when a particular app was introduced, over a short period of time. However, you failed to test against rivals (because you haven't used any of that data to explain your decision), and the only "test" you seemed to have done is "how do we best get users to utilize our paid features?" I think you know that though, and you're just here lying for money. Not really surprising shady software practices are being defended by shady PR liars.
      - dang 11y ago
        > you're just here lying for money This is absolutely not ok in a Hacker News comment. If you can't comment civilly, please don't comment here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        eveningcoffee 11y ago
        > http://mozakai.blogspot.com/p/about.html http://mozakai.blogspot.com/p/about.html researcher at Mozilla
        JadeNB 11y ago
        I think that it is not so much the "… for money" part (although that's probably also inappropriate) as the "lying …" part.
        dang 11y ago
        The civility rule isn't conditional on where someone works.
        eveningcoffee 11y ago
        Actually I was not going to say that. Just wanted to point out why perhaps parent wrote such comment.
- holri 11y ago
  I could not find happiness of users as a top principle in the Mozilla Manifesto [1]. What I did find is "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." "Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource" So their speak and actions are very different, like shady politicians. Actions speak louder than words. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    Firefox has to succeed in the market in order to achieve its goals. User happiness matters a lot for market share.
    - rockdoe 11y ago
      I don't get why you're being downvoted. If Firefox is a tool for the Mozilla Foundation to achieve their goals, then yes, it must absolutely be a product that anyone (not just experts) would be willing to use.
- amalcon 11y ago
  This is a terrible reason: "We can't offer users a choice, because if we do that, most of them will decline! We know they want the feature, despite what they say, so we just won't offer a choice!" Firefox has always been the browser that, in contrast to the competition, doesn't try to decide what's best for me. I really appreciate that. Even with this change Firefox is still the best about that, but it is not a move in the right direction.
  - rockdoe 11y ago
    Too much choice makes users unhappy. I thought that was well enough known from UX research that it shouldn't be a controversial decision?
    - hiou 11y ago
      Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant as the issue here is very much about inclusion of a closed source 3rd party data collection service included by default to an open source browser provided by a non-profit with a mission to protect users from, among other things, that very thing. With that said, much of the UX research you are talking about deals with a users first use of a program. The entire program not the addition of one additional feature over time. Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just click "no" unless they are lead to believe they will lose functionality they currently have. If we were to actually follow the current UX trends from research pocket(or pretty much any features) would never get added to Firefox at all past it's core use of browsing the web.
      - rockdoe 11y ago
        Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant Of course it is, if the question is why it was bundled by default, rather than leaving it in the add-on store. Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just click "no" unless they are lead to believe they will lose functionality they currently have. That sounds like a strong argument in favor.
        11y ago

azakai 11y ago

Almost all users of any popular browser are not tech savvy like you and I and other people here on Hacker News. They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier, overall, with it present by default. Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do like it.

JadeNB 11y ago
> They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. This sounds like an excuse that could justify withholding just about any choice from users. Why not have a first-run splash page with something like "Pocket is a really cool service that runs best when it's part of your Firefox. May we turn it on? [yes] [no] Don't worry, you can always change your mind later! [Read more about what Pocket does.]"
- azakai 11y ago
  The real decision isn't made based on a guess like "it would sound complex". It is made by doing a user study - a test of actual users. That data guides the decision, and the data here showed users benefited more, on average, by bundling it, rather than having it be something the user needs to authorize and/or install.
  - ObviousScience 11y ago
    You keep saying "we tested!", but I don't think you understand how testing works or what you're actually claiming to have tested versus what other people are talking about. You see, what you tested is the behavior of users when a particular app was introduced, over a short period of time. However, you failed to test against rivals (because you haven't used any of that data to explain your decision), and the only "test" you seemed to have done is "how do we best get users to utilize our paid features?" I think you know that though, and you're just here lying for money. Not really surprising shady software practices are being defended by shady PR liars.
    - dang 11y ago
      > you're just here lying for money This is absolutely not ok in a Hacker News comment. If you can't comment civilly, please don't comment here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - eveningcoffee 11y ago
        > http://mozakai.blogspot.com/p/about.html http://mozakai.blogspot.com/p/about.html researcher at Mozilla
        JadeNB 11y ago
        I think that it is not so much the "… for money" part (although that's probably also inappropriate) as the "lying …" part.
        dang 11y ago
        The civility rule isn't conditional on where someone works.
        eveningcoffee 11y ago
        Actually I was not going to say that. Just wanted to point out why perhaps parent wrote such comment.
holri 11y ago
I could not find happiness of users as a top principle in the Mozilla Manifesto [1]. What I did find is "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional." "Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a public resource" So their speak and actions are very different, like shady politicians. Actions speak louder than words. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
- brighteyes 11y ago
  Firefox has to succeed in the market in order to achieve its goals. User happiness matters a lot for market share.
  - rockdoe 11y ago
    I don't get why you're being downvoted. If Firefox is a tool for the Mozilla Foundation to achieve their goals, then yes, it must absolutely be a product that anyone (not just experts) would be willing to use.
amalcon 11y ago
This is a terrible reason: "We can't offer users a choice, because if we do that, most of them will decline! We know they want the feature, despite what they say, so we just won't offer a choice!" Firefox has always been the browser that, in contrast to the competition, doesn't try to decide what's best for me. I really appreciate that. Even with this change Firefox is still the best about that, but it is not a move in the right direction.
- rockdoe 11y ago
  Too much choice makes users unhappy. I thought that was well enough known from UX research that it shouldn't be a controversial decision?
  - hiou 11y ago
    Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant as the issue here is very much about inclusion of a closed source 3rd party data collection service included by default to an open source browser provided by a non-profit with a mission to protect users from, among other things, that very thing. With that said, much of the UX research you are talking about deals with a users first use of a program. The entire program not the addition of one additional feature over time. Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just click "no" unless they are lead to believe they will lose functionality they currently have. If we were to actually follow the current UX trends from research pocket(or pretty much any features) would never get added to Firefox at all past it's core use of browsing the web.
    - rockdoe 11y ago
      Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant Of course it is, if the question is why it was bundled by default, rather than leaving it in the add-on store. Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just click "no" unless they are lead to believe they will lose functionality they currently have. That sounds like a strong argument in favor.
      - 11y ago