We are still evaluating this. There's no clear reason why this is necessary (considering using the tool shows an intention to send the specified data), but it hasn't been 100% ruled out.1. You may know that, but the user doesn't know that. Enabling the user to preview the info gives the user confidence that Firefox is not spyware and only reveals data with the user's approval.
Again, the *purpose* of the tool is to send the said information. No user will ever be obligated to use it. A user can choose to never use it. There will likely be a privacy policy specifying how information is collected/used.2. In Talkback, no URL is sent unless the user volunteers it by pasting it in.
By using the tool, you know a URL is going to be sent. If your not willing to send a URL... you have no reason to use the tool at all. It's not a feedback tool. It's not an alternative to email. It's not tech support. The tool is for *reporting url's*. If a user doesn't want to do that, that's their choice, and we respect that. But without the proper URL... there's no point to the tool, or the evangelism project.
So particpiate if you want to help, or don't participate, we respect everyone's choice. My grandmother won't buy online. Does that mean Amazon.com can't exist because she's not comfortable giving out her credit card information? No, she doesn't use it. But millions of others still do. Amazon doesn't harm her in any way. Nor will this tool.
Were making it easier for people to make Gecko better. That's all.
That's the difference between a user, and a pro-user/hacker/developer. No big deal. Most windows users don't know where the registry is, and how to edit it. Most Mac OS X users don't know what a shell is. No big deal. We cater to all users. That's what made Firefox popular. Easy enough for a novice, powerful enough for the biggest geek.3. It sounds like info may be available in the UI, but not known to the user. I certainly didn't know about about:config, and new users will not know about other information sources.
Platform is sent to any website that wants it. It's in the UA, it's accessible via javascript. This has been the case with all browsers for a long time.4. Displaying the info lets the user identify their own platform case better when following any discussions.
The target user of this is the casual user. Who doesn't care why it doesn't work. They just want to use Firefox on the sites they like. And we want to know what they want.
Please provide preview before send.
Anyone who wants/needs such info... already knows it. That's the bottom line.
Again, users see the URL when submitting. They submit at their own will. They must invoke the tool, select a pulldown list of problems. And submit. The only way they submit is at their own will.
* Give users the option to edit/omit some info (for privacy) e.g., url may contain user-identifying parameters
If users edit/omit information, it ivailidates the info. http://www.yahoo.com != http://www.yahoo.com/someGeckoBuster/activex.html
We need to know specifics.
There's also a reason why we ask if the page is behind a login or not. We can easly restrict access to reports that are behind a login. Which may happen. So the public site only shows reports that are not behind a login. Users with appropriate access to the system can view login reports as well.
They choose to send. They require a few clicks to submit. They have enough time to review.Options: * Abort only. If after previewing info, there is anything you don't want to reveal, your only option is to not send it.
* Omit only. Like talkback, you can omit certain fields. The rest are unchanged. (Could be extended to trim parameters, or trim parameters and path, from URL, so you know the rest is accurate.) * Edit with flag. If user edits a field such as url, flag it as edited, so you know it may be erroneous.
If a user feels the need to edit/remove... we don't want their report.
Simple enough. We don't need mangled data. The point of the tool is to provide easy correct, useful data. If we compromise that, it defeats the effort. It's wasted code and server space.
Again, it's user choice to participate. We aren't forcing anyone.
But we won't be accepting garbage data... simply becuase that's just wasted bandwidth and diskspace. It would do nothing but pollute the database.
>This is less critical than preview. But recognize that complaint numbers may be reduced from sensitive sites, such as banking or financial sites.
Banking or financial sites *don't* show any personal info in the URL. Using the URL would not do anything to compromise security. That would be a gigantic security breach on behalf of the website. Nobody is doing something that stupid in the banking/financial industry. That's security 101.
We don't collect cookies, usernames, passwords or the contents of the page. The URL itself is harmless on such a site.
Wrong. The benefit is made clear in the final version of the tool.. Help improve gecko and improve accessiblity on pages that block Firefox.
The benefit doesn't have to be an individual report, it could be an aggregate report, like * the number of unique complaints against the site, * the number of unique complaints against each path at the site with more than 10 complaints. * the rank of the site: if it is the site with the 4th most complaints evangelism is probably working on it, but if it is the site with 104th most complaints, probably not.
Analogy: many people don't participate in web polls unless they are interested in seeing the results, and wouldn't participate at all if there was not the reward of seeing the poll results so far. Web polls also enable voters to go back and see the results again later, (so it doesn't discourage voters from voting early). For site complaints, the information in the aggregate report and rank is the reward, and the tracking number is what allows early complainants to go back and view the results later after more complaints have gone in.
We aren't providing tech support. The data is accessible to anyone who wants it (minus some info for privacy reasons).
We will make use of agregate information.
You need to remember, there is nothing to say. The info is just going to sit in a database until someone queries it. It's up to the website to fix it. We can't force them to fix it. Some will never acheive gecko compatibility. Some will do it when they are asked by evangelism.
Just like the polls... it's personal choice to participate. We know not everyone will. But some will be willing to help improve Gecko on the web by participating. Those people will use this tool. This tool is for those people.
This tool is unlike talkback in one important respect: Talkback is
initiated by Mozilla Firefox, the user only has to approve the process. But for this tool, the user has to initiate the process, so there
needs to be benefit users can see, or they will rarely bother.
Aggregate report rewarding is less critical than preview to start, but recognize that without it complaints will be skewed even more toward GetFirefox tech enthusiasts and not the general Firefox user population.
Agregate data isn't a good idea to show the user. Since it could be misunderstood. 1,000,000 reports in our DB doesn't mean 1 Mil incompatable websites. 90% could be windowsupdate.
Data is only useful in context. A context we won't be providing, since the average user just wants things to work. That's all they want. A working browser that works on every site they visit.
*Summary*
We want to make it easier for them to tell us where the problems are. If they want to tell us, we are all ears! If they don't. Fine! We respect that. It's a personal choice.
I know someone who *hates* tabbed browsing. But that's no reason to ditch the feature. Just because you don't want to use the tool, doesn't mean nobody will.
We have quite a few reports in bugzilla now, where people created an account, just to tell us what site didn't work. Were simplifying this process and making it easier. Not to mention more accurate.
Users rule, it's their choice to participate. We are providing a tool that makes it easy for users to aid us. We collect anonymous information. The user initiates it each and *every* time. Never will this tool send 1 bit of data without the user agreeing to do so.
The privacy argument is quite invalid. Users can see the URL they are submitting. They do so at their own free will. They have no obligation to do so at any time.
Believe me. I've gone through great lengths to figure out how to keep things as anonymous and privacy savvy as possible.
There's a reason why no account is needed to submit reports. No username, no real name.
The next release will have an optional email address, if you wish to let us contact you if we have questions. Again, it even says "optional". Because it is: optional.
Not everyone will participate. Not everyone submits trackback reports. That's OK. Were just making it easier for people to submit reports. If they want to do it. Great! If they don't. That's great too! It's *optional*.
_______________________________________________
mozilla-layout mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-layout
