This smaller release-bug fixes, behind-the-scenes improvements, but trivial user-visible difference-is apposite to be the benchmark for unborn Firefox versions. Bigger features will still make one's appearance from era to time, but for the most part, users will just sample a continuous improvement. Firefox updates should be robot and essentially invisible.
Even articles such as this one, which adhere some value to the new release, are probably not what Mozilla wants-press coverage should heart on features, not variety numbers. Mozilla-as with Google-wants developers to terminate targeting limited browser versions, and instead butt standards; the regular releases are one out of step towards achieving that goal. Another explication part is downplaying kind numbers. Again, Chrome is the glaring example here; if you look at the Chrome , for example, there's no inkling of which construction of Chrome you're present to get. It's just "the latest.
" However, Mozilla wants to get this a pace further. A participate request entered into Mozilla's enthusiast system (feature requests aren't bugs in any ritual sense, but Mozilla uses one procedure for managing everything) calls for the liquidation of the version total from Firefox's "About" dialog. Instead, the decided is to make the About punch do two things; show the product handle and links to legal information, as it already does, and show how lengthy ago Firefox checked that it was up-to-date, with some brand of provision to check true now. There won't be a adaptation number-just an indicator of whether the browser is up-to-date or not. This was no nothing but trolling or take a crack at to start a discussion: the was made by Asa Dotzler, Firefox's Product lead, and he he filed the disease at the whisper of Firefox's usability lead, Alex Limi.
The have an eye to get rid of the reading crowd is coming from the top. The reaction, however, was almost always negative. While many commenters agreed with the broader appeal to downplay translation numbers, they disagreed with the change, since the idea digit remains useful when diagnosing problems, and users wait for to get it in the about dialog.
Quotes were made from the Windows, Mac OS X, and GNOME buyer interface guidelines to prop this point; in all three, the about dialog is meant to define a version. Getting rid of the account gang breaks this expectation. Version info would still be visible, but only through the little-known "about:support" page. While we have with Mozilla that the prompt free policy and downplaying of the view number is the best way dispatch for the Web itself, the virtue of making this coppers is harder to fathom.
For most people, the only intelligence to even have an "About" dialog is to determine which version you're running-the calculate of users who care about the judiciary mumbo jumbo, or Mozilla's mission-statement, is vanishingly few. Even having the update have a role in the About lambaste (as Chrome also does) runs unpropitious to expectations-checking which understanding you're currently match shouldn't replace that version. And for what gain? Even if the model number isn't very important, it's a drama of trivia that users foresee to see there.
Putting it there hurts nobody, and is conforming with their expectations. The biggest pickle with browser style numbers is not browser users-it's Web developers, making decisions on the point of departure of the side string. If Mozilla were honestly serious about preventing living souls from depending on the version number, it's not the About dialog that would worsted the type number-it's the version bumf sent to every Web server every unattached time the browser requests a period that should disappear.
Leave the information ready to users; just prevent developers from having access to it. That's where it at bottom matters. The tiff is made that you don't have knowledge of what version of, say, Twitter or Facebook you're using, so why should your Web browser be any different? One rather big, self-explanatory modification is that Web sites aren't installed locally and don't have to be manually updated. Firefox at the significance still does. The browser still doesn't have a husky self-governing update mechanism.
It doesn't effect Chrome-like noiseless updates, so the drug is made lamentably au courant that she is switching versions. If you're contemporary to also pressurize the user to cognizant of about every update, it seems a little unfair to dross to even tell her what version she's using. In equivalent with the vigour issue, it also seems that the entire trouble could have been avoided if Mozilla had simply switched to a date-like construct number.
This would both end one of the establishment gripes-that major variation number bumps incur addition testing-and the About box could then explain something equivalent to, "this rendering of Firefox was created on 2011-08-11. It is up-to-date," which would both describe users how hardened their version was (if at all), and oblige as a version identifier of sorts. Dotzler's care for appears to be made up, however. Though he "" the bother announce "to the mob", seemingly due to the negative reception, he regards the unexceptional discussion as. So the variation looks as if it's universal to go ahead, user expectations be damned.
Read the very informative article: read here
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий