1430027 - On the download page, for Linux, highlight the 64-bit version (to limit the number of 32 downloads)

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(www.mozilla.org :: Pages & Content, enhancement)

Description

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

on https://www.mozilla.org/firefox/all/
32 & 64 bit versions are at the same level. 

As 32-bit versions are the past, we should maybe:
* state that the 64-bit is recommended
* remove the 32-bit direct download link
* ...

Comment 1

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Kohei, would you have an idea?

Comment 2

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

As briefly discussed on IRC,

* Highlight the visitor's platform column
* Blur other columns

Plus,

* Highlight the visitor's preferred language row(s)
* Blur other rows
* Fix the table header

This will look like this:

https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/all/

(still needs styling for narrower layouts and testing though)

Comment 3

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc (PTO until April 26)]

(In reply to Kohei Yoshino [:kohei] from comment #2)
> As briefly discussed on IRC,
> 
> * Highlight the visitor's platform column
> * Blur other columns
> 
> Plus,
> 
> * Highlight the visitor's preferred language row(s)
> * Blur other rows
> * Fix the table header
> 
> This will look like this:
> 
> https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/all/
> 
> (still needs styling for narrower layouts and testing though)

LGTM :)

Comment 4

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

I am getting 32 bit highlighted https://screenshots.firefox.com/nMKMQojaIo0IuLpy/bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works (from a 64 bit system).
is that expected?

Also, what will happen if I am a Firefox 32-bit user on a 64-bit system? In that case, we don't want to highlight 32 but 64 instead.

tbh, I am not convinced this is going far enough to tell to the user that 32-bit isn't recommended anymore.

Comment 5

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

The 32/64-bit detection [1] is based on the browser's navigator info so the result might be wrong in some cases. The highlighting presentation is, hmm, apparently a bad idea, though it "looks good." Should we rather use the Recommended/Legacy categorization as originally suggested in Bug 1336042?

[1] https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/blob/master/media/js/base/site.js#L123-L135

Comment 6

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Yes, probably better. Thanks

Comment 7

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

Revised mockup: https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/all/

Comment 8

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Much better!
works for me!
thanks!

Comment 9

[GitHub Bugzilla PR Linker]

Attachment: Link to GitHub pull-request: https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/pull/5432

Comment 10

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

Updated the style to unhighlight legacy builds.

Comment 11

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Chris, what do you think?

Comment 12

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

Looks good! Two comments, but I don't consider these blocking issues if you feel strongly. :)

1. I'm not a fan of calling 32-bit Windows and Linux downloads "Legacy". About 20% of Firefox Windows users are running 32-bit Windows OS and will never be able to run 64-bit Firefox. Maybe remove the "Legacy" label but keep the "Recommended" label and highlight?

2. The dimmed icons for 32-bit Windows and Linux make the download links look like they're disabled or not clickable. Maybe make them not as dim? Or don't dim the icons at all and just let the "Recommended" column highlight do the work of promoting the 64-bit?

I liked the suggestion in comment 2 to highlight the visitor's platform column and language row(s). Why was that idea discarded?

(In reply to Sylvestre Ledru [:sylvestre] from comment #4)
> Also, what will happen if I am a Firefox 32-bit user on a 64-bit system? In
> that case, we don't want to highlight 32 but 64 instead.

On 64-bit Windows OS, 32-bit browsers' User-Agent strings still mention "Win64". So we can make a very good guess whether Windows visitors can run 64-bit Firefox. I don't know if Linux User-Agent strings share whether the OS is 32- or 64-bit.

Comment 13

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc (PTO until April 26)]

https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/all/#fr
There is an opacity problem with the green part I think when you use a locale as an anchor

Comment 14

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc (PTO until April 26)]

(In reply to Chris Peterson [:cpeterson] from comment #12)
> Looks good! Two comments, but I don't consider these blocking issues if you
> feel strongly. :)
> 
> 1. I'm not a fan of calling 32-bit Windows and Linux downloads "Legacy".
> About 20% of Firefox Windows users are running 32-bit Windows OS and will
> never be able to run 64-bit Firefox. Maybe remove the "Legacy" label but
> keep the "Recommended" label and highlight?


How about Modern vs Traditional instead of Recommended vs Legacy?


> 
> 2. The dimmed icons for 32-bit Windows and Linux make the download links
> look like they're disabled or not clickable. Maybe make them not as dim? Or
> don't dim the icons at all and just let the "Recommended" column highlight
> do the work of promoting the 64-bit?

I agree with this one, I think that just removing the grey filter (filter: saturate(0)) buth keeping the lower opacity should convey the same message and not make link appear as disabled.

> 
> I liked the suggestion in comment 2 to highlight the visitor's platform
> column and language row(s). Why was that idea discarded?

Because a Linux 64bit user using a Firefox 32bit would get proposed the 32bits version.
I think we could keep the language highlighted though but maybe in a separate bug (not related to 32 vs 64).

> 
> (In reply to Sylvestre Ledru [:sylvestre] from comment #4)
> > Also, what will happen if I am a Firefox 32-bit user on a 64-bit system? In
> > that case, we don't want to highlight 32 but 64 instead.
> 
> On 64-bit Windows OS, 32-bit browsers' User-Agent strings still mention
> "Win64". So we can make a very good guess whether Windows visitors can run
> 64-bit Firefox. I don't know if Linux User-Agent strings share whether the
> OS is 32- or 64-bit.

I don't think they do, that's why we can't make a client-side informed decision here, kohei can you confirm?

Comment 15

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Not convinced about the "traditional" proposition. We could instead just removed "Legacy" and keep the "Recommended".

I think we should indeed remove the grey filter and deploy that.

Comment 16

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

Okay, I'll update my pull request to remove the "Legacy" label and grey filter. 

Let's revisit the client-side platform detection in a separate bug.

Comment 17

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

Updated!

https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/all/
https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/developer/all/
https://bedrock-demo-firefox-all.us-west.moz.works/en-US/firefox/nightly/all/

Comment 18

[Chris Peterson [:cpeterson]]

Looks good! :D

Comment 19

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Indeed, I think you reached a perfect solution, bravo :)

Comment 20

[Sylvestre Ledru [:Sylvestre]]

Kohei, any news on this? Thanks

Comment 21

[Kohei Yoshino [:kohei]]

I just saw jpetto's comments on the PR. Updating now.

Comment 22

[[github robot]]

Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock

https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/5ccdfb06914dca81ba74127729eda37d29a49330
Fix Bug 1430027 - On the download page, for Linux, highlight the 64-bit version (to limit the number of 32 downloads)