Mozilla to remove Firefox version numbers(extremetech.com)
extremetech.com
Mozilla to remove Firefox version numbers
http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92792-mozilla-takes-firefox-version-number-removal-a-step-further
24 comments
Chrome does this right. You don't have to worry about the version number, but they make no attempt to hide it. The "About" box announces that Chrome is up to date, yet still shows the version number incidentally, in parentheses. The parentheses are a subtle way of telling a user that it's not critical information, but rather a supplementary datum which can be safely ignored by default.
The version number is in about:troubleshooting which is in the help menu. And Help|Troubleshooting seems like a much more logical place to go when bug-hunting than Help|About.
The problem with that is that we've spent years training users that the version number of a product is on its "about" dialog. That dialog will still exist in Firefox, but it won't tell you what you expect.
Now, I'm quite happy to admit that most users won't think to look there first, but Firefox is breaking from convention here, and surprising the user is rarely a good thing.
Now, I'm quite happy to admit that most users won't think to look there first, but Firefox is breaking from convention here, and surprising the user is rarely a good thing.
I think you meant about:support which takes you to the Troubleshooting Information page.
Pretty ironic that confusion is brewing even among the technically savvy crowd here. This probably proves the OP's point.
No? This is exactly the sort of "pedantry" the average user won't care about -- they just click on a menu item to get there.
Isn't TFA about removing the menu item or am I missing something here?
The menu item I'm talking about is "Help->Troubleshooting". The change being considered in the bug is regarding the "About" item.
They should definitely get rid of about:support then. It's just not consistent from a UI perspective. And yes, like the person above mentioned, if we can get confused about it, an average user will just be really frustrated.
"Troubleshooting" takes you to about:support, while "About" is the standard about menu item that pops up version info, credits, and the like.
So clearly! your point about it being too confusing is wrong... =P
So clearly! your point about it being too confusing is wrong... =P
So is it in "about:troubleshooting", "http://about:troubleshooting, "http://www.about:troubleshooting, "http://about:troubleshooting.com, "about.troubleshooting", "www.about:troubleshooting", etc.
Mundane users make this mistake. Don't rely on a large percentage to get this right.
Mundane users make this mistake. Don't rely on a large percentage to get this right.
You tell users to click on Troubleshooting in the help menu.
I suppose Help|Troubleshooting is acceptable (didn't know about that one), but it's still sitting in an omg-everything-broke kind of page that looks like random-user's nightmare come true.
Another scenario: you wish to tell your web app's users that there are some issues on certain Firefox versions. You wrote "There are some issues for Firefox 7.xx". Users scratch their heads and ask, what version? Nightmare follows.
If it's your webapp, you check the User-Agent-header (which still contains the browser version) and then, if they have the problematic version, tell the user to make sure that they have the latest version of Firefox installed (which they can still check in the about box).
If it's somebody else's webapp, you still tell the user to check the about box to make sure it's the latest version of Firefox.
For you as a web author and supporter, this process makes sure that you only have to test with one version of Firefox any more: The latest (minus the few percent of <= 3.6 installs still around before the fast release cycle went into effect)
If it's somebody else's webapp, you still tell the user to check the about box to make sure it's the latest version of Firefox.
For you as a web author and supporter, this process makes sure that you only have to test with one version of Firefox any more: The latest (minus the few percent of <= 3.6 installs still around before the fast release cycle went into effect)
You mean like http://fafsa.gov ? They tell users to get the latest browser version, and then block them if they're running anything higher than Firefox v3.6. (Complaints are met with "install 3.6" or crickets. Same problem with running any browser from Mac's 10.7 Lion, as they also do OS sniffing.)
On the bright side, removing version numbers may help push ignorant web devs away from version-based browser sniffing toward the more palatable/usable/progress-friendly functionality-based sniffing.
On the bright side, removing version numbers may help push ignorant web devs away from version-based browser sniffing toward the more palatable/usable/progress-friendly functionality-based sniffing.
"If it's your webapp, you check the User-Agent-header"
Thats fine if your communication is only via your website. Consider if you have to send an email bulletin and explain this. Or write it up in a technical support answer.
"If it's somebody else's webapp, you still tell the user to check the about box to make sure it's the latest version of Firefox."
Sometimes there are problems in the latest version.
Thats fine if your communication is only via your website. Consider if you have to send an email bulletin and explain this. Or write it up in a technical support answer.
"If it's somebody else's webapp, you still tell the user to check the about box to make sure it's the latest version of Firefox."
Sometimes there are problems in the latest version.
> Thats fine if your communication is only via your website. Consider if you have to send an email bulletin and explain this. Or write it up in a technical support answer.
The people who visit your page with the problematic version of Firefox will get to see the message. The others don't need to know.
> Sometimes there are problems in the latest version.
as you only have to deal with one version of Firefox, work around the problem in your web app code.
The people who visit your page with the problematic version of Firefox will get to see the message. The others don't need to know.
> Sometimes there are problems in the latest version.
as you only have to deal with one version of Firefox, work around the problem in your web app code.
> The people who visit your page with the problematic version of Firefox will get to see the message. The others don't need to know.
Obviously, this is not true when you're providing a web application as a service to a large corporation with big IT departments, business analysts, armies of project managers and complex contracts with all sorts of requirements.
Obviously, this is not true when you're providing a web application as a service to a large corporation with big IT departments, business analysts, armies of project managers and complex contracts with all sorts of requirements.
> as you only have to deal with one version of Firefox, work around the problem in your web app code.
Ah, of course, wish I'd thought of that.
And what do you tell them in the interim, while the problem is being debugged, fixed, tested and rolled out?
I guess now its just "doesnt work in Firefox" not "doesnt work in Firefox 7, keep using 6 for now".
Ah, of course, wish I'd thought of that.
And what do you tell them in the interim, while the problem is being debugged, fixed, tested and rolled out?
I guess now its just "doesnt work in Firefox" not "doesnt work in Firefox 7, keep using 6 for now".
Why is this a problem in Firefox but not in Chrome? Chrome updates itself all the time and it's really hard to make it stop doing so.
Now Firefox is moving in the same direction and this behavior suddenly gets to be a problem.
Firefox releases new major releases every six weeks, but there is a period of 12 weeks for it to move from alpha to final. That should be enough time to debug, fix, test and roll out.
And if you are targeting corporate installations, you will probably disable Firefox auto-updating itself, but again, it's irrelevant to ask "which version of Firefox are you running?" as the answer will always be: "the latest possible" which is the latest stable in non-managed cases and the latest deployed in managed cases.
Hence I think removing the version number from the about box is no big deal and will help against all these "omg! They are crazy to release so many major versions in so little time" posts we are seeing all over the place.
Now Firefox is moving in the same direction and this behavior suddenly gets to be a problem.
Firefox releases new major releases every six weeks, but there is a period of 12 weeks for it to move from alpha to final. That should be enough time to debug, fix, test and roll out.
And if you are targeting corporate installations, you will probably disable Firefox auto-updating itself, but again, it's irrelevant to ask "which version of Firefox are you running?" as the answer will always be: "the latest possible" which is the latest stable in non-managed cases and the latest deployed in managed cases.
Hence I think removing the version number from the about box is no big deal and will help against all these "omg! They are crazy to release so many major versions in so little time" posts we are seeing all over the place.
No. You tell the users that the web app works fine on Firefox, and they can check in the about window to make sure they're up to date.
I think updates are in the about windows because the Chrome team wanted to hide them. Normal users won't see or think about updates or version numbers if they're hidden in the about window, and that was their goal.
Why not switch to Ubuntu-style version numbers? If they have to ship multiple version in a month, either include the day in the version number or call it Update X.
Using the date for the version number gets rid of any connotations associated with versioning (a .1 release being smaller than a whole number release, or that Firefox 7 is less advanced than Chrome 15 because its version number is half of Chrome's) while still allowing users to identify what version they're running.
Using the date for the version number gets rid of any connotations associated with versioning (a .1 release being smaller than a whole number release, or that Firefox 7 is less advanced than Chrome 15 because its version number is half of Chrome's) while still allowing users to identify what version they're running.
A sequential version number gives a [probably misleading] indication of maturity.
A chronological version number gives an indication of currency.
Hiding the version number doesn't seem helpful.
A chronological version number gives an indication of currency.
Hiding the version number doesn't seem helpful.
How do you use date-based version numbers for planning purposes? Do you have another versioning system just to list what will be included in each release?
With a rigid release schedule, it's easy to figure out the release date for a given version. Luckily, Mozilla has already standardized on development cycles of 18 weeks (http://blog.mozilla.com/futurereleases/2011/07/19/every-six-...) staggered to result in releases every 6 weeks.
Distant Ubuntu releases (not yet codenamed) are generally referred to as [latest_codename] + x, like "Compositing will actually work well in Natty+5", meaning the feature is targeted for five releases after Natty.
Since Firefox has "Aurora" and "Beta" channels on a regular graduation schedule (Trunk->Aurora, Aurora->Beta, Beta->Final), the only question is "When is unmerged feature X going to be placed in trunk?", and the answer to that is usually "when we expect it to work well enough".
What will be interesting here is when there are MAJOR changes that take more than six weeks of testing to stabilize. Will the cycle just stall temporarily and go immediately back to six weeks on the next cycle?
Since Firefox has "Aurora" and "Beta" channels on a regular graduation schedule (Trunk->Aurora, Aurora->Beta, Beta->Final), the only question is "When is unmerged feature X going to be placed in trunk?", and the answer to that is usually "when we expect it to work well enough".
What will be interesting here is when there are MAJOR changes that take more than six weeks of testing to stabilize. Will the cycle just stall temporarily and go immediately back to six weeks on the next cycle?
The title (of the blog post, and the submission mirrors that) is misleading.
There's a bug report (OK, so the report was submitted by Asa Dotzler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler)) but that doesn't make it a planned feature quite yet - does it? It appears that it's still under discussion.
There's a bug report (OK, so the report was submitted by Asa Dotzler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler)) but that doesn't make it a planned feature quite yet - does it? It appears that it's still under discussion.
Asa is the product manager of that feature, so I think it's not a "bug report" so much as a "assign this to a developer" request. Sounded like she just wanted to make sure the translation team didn't have a problem with it.
I'm a "he".
She? :)
On that matter, after the Asa/Kaply fiasco, I realized that journalists should put the name of the person in the title (at least the last name) to avoid confusion.
Your link to Wikipedia includes a closing parenthesis.
I don't have a strong opinion one way or another about this. On one hand, I am comfortable being able to get my software version number for pretty much any app in a convenient place. On the other hand, the thought that web apps (and perhaps apps in general) could transcend beyond the point where you even have to think "which version are you running?" is really intriguing to me.
Software versions seem like one of the most visible technical aspects of the software these days, and they matter very little to the average user. I think versions become largely irrelevant to _most_ people once their software reaches a point where they are constantly running the latest version.
That all said, what is the harm in having that version number appear in the about window as well as the notification about the latest update. It seems like an odd change for Mozilla to ruffle feathers with.
Software versions seem like one of the most visible technical aspects of the software these days, and they matter very little to the average user. I think versions become largely irrelevant to _most_ people once their software reaches a point where they are constantly running the latest version.
That all said, what is the harm in having that version number appear in the about window as well as the notification about the latest update. It seems like an odd change for Mozilla to ruffle feathers with.
They are removing them because to be at Version 21 next December and still work mostly like Firefox 6 is going to feel silly.
What ever happened to using MINOR version numbers?
Shouldn't Firefox 5 actually be 4.5 and Firefox 6 actually 4.6 ?
What are the huge major changes?
What ever happened to using MINOR version numbers?
Shouldn't Firefox 5 actually be 4.5 and Firefox 6 actually 4.6 ?
What are the huge major changes?
What does this gain you? It doesn't matter what the version number is, so why not make it a simple integer? Version numbers aren't a way to communicate feature changes, you do that in release notes.
Your attitude towards version numbers is exactly what this change seeks to eliminate.
Your attitude towards version numbers is exactly what this change seeks to eliminate.
http://semver.org/
Version numbers are useful. They allow you to communicate a lot about the risk/reward involved in an upgrade without having to read the release notes.
When presented with 2.3.12 -> 2.3.45 it's a pretty easy call to accept 33 patch releases without much investigation.
2.3.12 -> 3.0.1 Whoa, we should stage this and make sure we aren't going to screw ourselves on compat issues.
The target audience isn't Joe user, it's professional courtesy to your peers in the field. You're welcome to add (or not) some kind of marketing "version" beyond that, but really, it's valuable.
Version numbers are useful. They allow you to communicate a lot about the risk/reward involved in an upgrade without having to read the release notes.
When presented with 2.3.12 -> 2.3.45 it's a pretty easy call to accept 33 patch releases without much investigation.
2.3.12 -> 3.0.1 Whoa, we should stage this and make sure we aren't going to screw ourselves on compat issues.
The target audience isn't Joe user, it's professional courtesy to your peers in the field. You're welcome to add (or not) some kind of marketing "version" beyond that, but really, it's valuable.
Only if you run a scripting language and don't need to have feedback on your api before it becomes stable.
But the idea isn't too bad.
But the idea isn't too bad.
I actually agree with c2k as major and minor releases do tend to give more information than the integer releases.
I read a post the other week about a corporate user that was giving grief that they had only just finished testing firefox 4 for corporate roll out and firefox 5 had been released.
To corporate users, this situation is a nightmare. There is no clear definition of a major update
I prefer the old release schedule of major.minor releases. I like the rapid development it now has but I just don't like this rapid release version numbering.
On a side note, since Firefox changed the way they were doing everything, I switched to Chrome and so did everyone in my office. None us swayed each others decisions, we all felt the same about Firefox. They have lost scope of what is important, releasing stable versions of software. Firefox 4 was dreadful, 5 was a little better. I feel like there is no effort in making the release stable, it's just "let's sort it in the next one". I feel like they are always going to be chasing their tales.
Before anyone comments, I know Chrome has the same release schedule but I feel they are doing it a lot slicker than Mozilla is right now. Firefox changed the world for me back in 2004 and now they have lost the edge.
I read a post the other week about a corporate user that was giving grief that they had only just finished testing firefox 4 for corporate roll out and firefox 5 had been released.
To corporate users, this situation is a nightmare. There is no clear definition of a major update
I prefer the old release schedule of major.minor releases. I like the rapid development it now has but I just don't like this rapid release version numbering.
On a side note, since Firefox changed the way they were doing everything, I switched to Chrome and so did everyone in my office. None us swayed each others decisions, we all felt the same about Firefox. They have lost scope of what is important, releasing stable versions of software. Firefox 4 was dreadful, 5 was a little better. I feel like there is no effort in making the release stable, it's just "let's sort it in the next one". I feel like they are always going to be chasing their tales.
Before anyone comments, I know Chrome has the same release schedule but I feel they are doing it a lot slicker than Mozilla is right now. Firefox changed the world for me back in 2004 and now they have lost the edge.
Before anyone comments, I know Chrome has the same release schedule but I feel they are doing it a lot slicker than Mozilla is right now.
--------------------
No, you're right ... the problem with Firefox is that they changed the way the were doing it mid way (which is odd) while Chrome has been doing it like that from te jump
--------------------
No, you're right ... the problem with Firefox is that they changed the way the were doing it mid way (which is odd) while Chrome has been doing it like that from te jump
I meant tails! I was tired when I wrote this, hence the grammar and spelling mistakes!
It does matter. There is a concept that there are major releases and minor releases. Major releases mostly introduce features, minor releases fix bugs and other annoyances.
By making version number a simple integer, you lose the information whenever there were some major changes or not.
By making version number a simple integer, you lose the information whenever there were some major changes or not.
From marketing point of view it's not a wise move. Consider how much press announcing 'Firefox X is here' they lose. And each of these announcements can potentially attract new users.
I think Chrome's fast growth can in part be attributed to by the constant stream of news like 'Chrome 1,2,3,... released' which helped Google to build recognition.
I think Chrome's fast growth can in part be attributed to by the constant stream of news like 'Chrome 1,2,3,... released' which helped Google to build recognition.
Firefox isn't going to gain any valuable publicity that they don't already have by announcing "Firefox X is here". Unlike Chrome, they're not in a position to be making rapid gains - a large portion of what's left of the market is companies using older versions of IE for compatibility reasons, which aren't going to switch over on a whim.
Chrome had an advantage - it took a bite out of the large firefox market, which was already prepped for 'trying new browsers'. While the constant 'Chrome Y released!' helped, Chrome would probably have risen nearly as fast without it.
Chrome had an advantage - it took a bite out of the large firefox market, which was already prepped for 'trying new browsers'. While the constant 'Chrome Y released!' helped, Chrome would probably have risen nearly as fast without it.
Software distribution is moving to the web; Chrome is blazing the trail and showing what is possible. Mozilla blazed a trail themselves with Firefox, without which Chrome may not exist, and are now acting rationally to avoid being left behind.
The next step is to automate the update installation and process restart after the update is downloaded. The next step after that may be to automate the page refresh to view an updated render.
The next step is to automate the update installation and process restart after the update is downloaded. The next step after that may be to automate the page refresh to view an updated render.
This seems a bit excessive and weird. Why does Mozilla assume that the About Firefox window is where users go to see if an update is available? Even if that's true, why hide the version number? Chrome doesn't, and it's hardly confused people there.
This seems a bit excessive and weird.
One of the primary reasons I declared Chrome my browser of choice (this was among other reasons, mind you) was that just around Firefox 3 there came a time when I had to update it seemed almost daily. To keep my foot out of my mouth, I checked to see if maybe there were settings on my system that were coming undone upon shutdown and boot, negative. I grew quite annoyed that every time I launched I had to go through an update process again.
This is a change I personally am in favor of, and can only assume is the case for other non-power users of the browser. Thankfully though they're making that information available still through the about:support page for people who find that information relevant.
One of the primary reasons I declared Chrome my browser of choice (this was among other reasons, mind you) was that just around Firefox 3 there came a time when I had to update it seemed almost daily. To keep my foot out of my mouth, I checked to see if maybe there were settings on my system that were coming undone upon shutdown and boot, negative. I grew quite annoyed that every time I launched I had to go through an update process again.
This is a change I personally am in favor of, and can only assume is the case for other non-power users of the browser. Thankfully though they're making that information available still through the about:support page for people who find that information relevant.
Those numbers aren't really version numbers. It's closer to build/realse numbers now. They used to mean major releases with major changes, now they don't. I can see why they are getting rid of them. You still can find the release number if you want (as you can with chrome).
I think it's the right move. Today I was shocked that FF 6 was already out and I went searching to see if anything new had been added. Less-important version numbers will train people to expect gradual improvements rather than drastic changes so they won't be disappointed.
I get what they're doing here -- it's a response to the huge backlash in their new rapid-versioning process. But maybe they're being a bit overzealous.
I think the version numbering needs to stay in the About window, but it should be less emphasized. Today, their whole roadmap is about "Firefox 6! Firefox 7!" and so on. They wave each major version number around like some sort of banner when lately very few (if any) major features/improvements are observed between major versions.
I think they need to just swallow their pride and bogart the Chrome model: version number is in "about" if you need it -- other than that, it stays out of the way while the browser autoupdates itself.
I think the version numbering needs to stay in the About window, but it should be less emphasized. Today, their whole roadmap is about "Firefox 6! Firefox 7!" and so on. They wave each major version number around like some sort of banner when lately very few (if any) major features/improvements are observed between major versions.
I think they need to just swallow their pride and bogart the Chrome model: version number is in "about" if you need it -- other than that, it stays out of the way while the browser autoupdates itself.
I've always liked displaying a name followed by a 'build number.' It's simple, straightforward and easy-to-understand.
Complete removal seems a bit much. Why not the last revision number from their scm? Not sure why they keep insisting on going down this path. Version numbers and release schedules can be separate. They may be taking a page out of Chrome's playbook but their updates happen much more frequently and I think they push minor revisions in binary form instead of a wholesale update. All the latest updates to FF have been great and 7 will be really nice if it is as memory efficient as they say but seeing them having an identity crisis after waking up to strong competition doesn't impress.
If I see a new feature in Firefox is going to appear in Firefox 8, to me, version numbers are just out of control. In that case, reducing the relevancy of the version number makes sense. But I feel that, and I'm sure many developers feel the same way, if a software is not rewritten from scratch but instead is incrementally updated, that the major version number shouldn't change. I prefer Firefox 4.123 over Firefox 11.
That's just not the way a LOT of software works these days. For example, what version is facebook on? Do you know? Does it matter? What version is gmail on?
Chrome users only know what version they're on if they go and look at "about" but features are added all the time. You can't even find the chrome version number on their website--at least, I couldn't.
Linux changed to version 3.0 for no discernible reason. Emacs jumped from version 1 to version 13; versions 2 through 12 just didn't exist at all. Did it matter? No. It's just a number.
Chrome users only know what version they're on if they go and look at "about" but features are added all the time. You can't even find the chrome version number on their website--at least, I couldn't.
Linux changed to version 3.0 for no discernible reason. Emacs jumped from version 1 to version 13; versions 2 through 12 just didn't exist at all. Did it matter? No. It's just a number.
[deleted]
It will help supporting Firefox because there will just be two versions that matter: the up to date version, and the old version (which is any older version).
This simplifies any solution and troubleshooting, it either works in the current version, or Firefox will update - if it's connected to the internet. Which means eventually, Firefox is always up to date and there will no old versions and therefore no issues.
This simplifies any solution and troubleshooting, it either works in the current version, or Firefox will update - if it's connected to the internet. Which means eventually, Firefox is always up to date and there will no old versions and therefore no issues.
There has been some schizophrenic behavior around version numbers at Mozilla lately. Version 5.0 should have been more like version 4.1 and now they're just getting rid of them?
I can't help but see it as a case of Chrome envy. It's kind of silly.
I think the two browsers are pretty closely matched. There is no need to have a "version" measuring contest.
I think the two browsers are pretty closely matched. There is no need to have a "version" measuring contest.
Great news! Mozilla is finally accepting Chrome's good innovations. Now for a unified search bar...
This won't happen upstream because to get suggestions from a unified search bar, everything you type, including full addresses, must be sent to your search engine for suggestions. With a separate search bar, it is at least clear that you expect what you are typing to be sent to the search provider, and Firefox assumes you don't mind autocomplete features in that case. It is a different story, however, when records subpoenaed from Google include "http://p\, "http://p-o\, "http://p-o-r\, "http://p-o-r-n\. There may be a reason you're typing a string in the address bar instead of the search bar, after all...
Additionally, separation allows Awesome Bar to work better since it doesn't have to clutter the results with search suggestions.
However, if you like that functionality, there are multiple extensions that provide it. I've used Omnibar in the past.
Additionally, separation allows Awesome Bar to work better since it doesn't have to clutter the results with search suggestions.
However, if you like that functionality, there are multiple extensions that provide it. I've used Omnibar in the past.
Is this a good idea? Maybe. Is it such a good idea that it is worth yet another fight with the userbase? No way. Will the Firefox team members dig in, get defensive, and make the change anyways now? Almost surely.
Further discussion at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla.dev.usability/browse_...
as with web apps, version numbers don't matter at the front -- features do. The Build numbers and versions should stay in there where people who need to can find them though, ala Chrome...
The very long thread on Bugzilla regarding this - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678775
[deleted]
Oh no! No more cake!
But removing them means royally screwing bug-hunting. You can't ask them what channel they're on - what if they disabled automatic updates? What if their employer did? You can't ask them what version they are on in two steps (Firefox/Help => About), you'll have to send them... where? Some deep internal about:something page that looks like merely viewing it will destroy your computer, and requires you to type something abnormal? And just try getting people to type something correctly, or explain to them what an "address bar" is. Menus are known and relatively easy to traverse - they're just reading text.
Not only that, but it'll make looking for information about bugs harder too, because people will refer to channels more often, which rapidly becomes out-of-date information with no way to know which version it applied to.
You want to remove version numbers from the notifications about updates? Great! Big numbers aren't awesome for encouraging people to do things. But don't hide the version.