Closed Bug 1192099 Opened 4 years ago Closed 4 years ago

Verify copy for Mixed Content and Tracking Protection

Categories

(Firefox for Android :: General, defect)

ARM
Android
defect
Not set

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED
Firefox 43
Tracking Status
firefox42 --- affected
firefox43 --- verified

People

(Reporter: liuche, Assigned: liuche)

References

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Tanvi brought up the point that in bug 1185173, the string for Active-loaded-Passive-blocked ( https://bug1185173.bmoattachments.org/attachment.cgi?id=8644086 ) is confusing because it says "Firefox has blocked some insecure elements" while still showing the Insecure Connection UI, because there is passive mixed content loaded.

Some alternative strings:
"Firefox has blocked some of the insecure elements on this page."
"Although Fennec has blocked some content, there are still non-secure elements on this page."

If we want, this bug can also track verifying the other strings on Android for Mixed Content and Tracking Protection.
I'm adding Javaun here, as I think this copy has changed ("parts of the page" vs. "elements).

I still don't think "insecure" sounds right, either, but I'll wait for Javaun to comment before coming up with alts.
"Firefox has blocked some, but not all insecure parts of this page.” ?

Its important to note that we currently refer to "insecure" in all areas of our UI, not just these descriptions. So, rather than approaching this individually, we should take a look at the whole door-hanger so it works together.
For MCB, you can use the word "content". If you're blocking things with TP, we can only say "parts of page" or "elements". If TP, let's be very careful

For active MCB, we said: "Firefox has blocked parts of this page that are not secure."
Passive mixed-content (allowed) we say: " Parts of this page are not secure (such as images)."
"Firefox has blocked parts of this page that are not secure."
"Parts of this page are not secure (such as images)."

works for me!
Flags: needinfo?(liuche)
But here we are talking about the case where we have done both - blocked parts of the page and allowed other parts that are insecure.

The current string on Mobile which I'm proposing we change is -
Mixed active content is blocked; insecure mixed display content is loaded: 
"Fennec has blocked some insecure elements on this page."

The text we use in Desktop for this case - 
Mixed active content is blocked; insecure mixed display content is loaded:
"Parts of this page are not secure (such as images)."
Subpanel:
"Your connection is not private and information you share with the site could be viewed by others.  Although Firefox has blocked some content, there is still content on that is not secure."

The content in the subpanel is way to long for mobile and mobile doesn't have a subpanel.  But the current text is doesn't communicate that insecure elements have loaded on the page.  So I'm proposing a shortened version that tells the user that 1) insecure mixed display has loaded on the page and hence the page is not secure and 2) there are parts of this page that fennec also blocked.
"Although Fennec has blocked some content, there are still insecure elements on this page."

Note this state isn't to be confused with the following states and their corresponding text.
Mixed active content is blocked; no mixed display content is present:
"Firefox has blocked parts of this page that are not secure." (Desktop)
"Fennec has blocked insecure elements on this page." (Mobile)

No mixed active content is present; insecure mixed display content is loaded:
"Parts of this page are not secure (such as images)." (Desktop)
"This page has insecure elements."  (Mobile)
Though "insecure" is technically correct, I would wager that most users have a very different association with this word and to my ear it sounds very strange to use it in this case. We've also consciously gone away from saying "elements" on desktop, so I think we should make the same change on mobile. (We also can't say "content," per feedback from legal.)

Looking at the last two examples in comment 5, the desktop versions aren't significantly longer than the mobile ones. I would recommend using the same for both.

As for the string being discussed, I would propose the following:

"Fennec has blocked some parts of the page that are not secure."

Or, if we need to be more explicit:

"Fennec has blocked some (but not all) parts of the page that are not secure."
Talking to Tanvi, what the current string for "Active blocked - Passive loaded" does not convey is that is that we there are still other insecure elements on the page. We decided that the string should be "Firefox has blocked some of the insecure elements on this page." so we're explicit about not having blocked everything.

So the strings to change:
AB-PL: "Firefox has blocked some of the insecure elements on this page."
PL: "Parts of this page are not secure (such as images)."

I'll also change the strings *for mixed content* to say "content" instead of "elements".
Whoops, ignore my previous comment then.

That means we can't use "content" to refer to mixed content blocking either? or is that just for tracking protection?
Flags: needinfo?(liuche) → needinfo?(matej)
Okay, I'm getting a lot conflicting opinions, and I probably filed this bug too late in the cycle and so it's causing extra churn because of the deadline pressure. So I'd rather be safe and sit on this till 43, and finalize the strings then. I really do appreciate your taking the time to come up with these strings though! I should have brought this up earlier :/

Matej, we agree that the second string is more explicit, but I think it's a little long for mobile and not easy to scan.
"Fennec has blocked some (but not all) parts of the page that are not secure."

Are we allowed to continue using "content" to refer to mixed content blocking (*not* tracking protection)? We've been able to do so for all the past releases, so I'm getting mixed information about being able to keep doing that or not (since it's called "Mixed content" I would expect that we could still refer to it as "content). If so, we'd prefer the earlier strings because they're more concise while still being explicit.
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
I think we need Javaun to weigh in here. Might be OK in this case.
Flags: needinfo?(matej)
You can use "content" for MCB (it's in the name, "mixed content"), but we will never say "content" for TP. 

There's an email thread on this from Friday, I think we're square.
Flags: needinfo?(jmoradi)
Bug 1192099 - Verify copy for Mixed Content and Tracking Protection. r=mcomella
Attachment #8646069 - Flags: review?(michael.l.comella)
Attachment #8646069 - Flags: review?(michael.l.comella) → review+
Comment on attachment 8646069 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1192099 - Verify copy for Mixed Content and Tracking Protection. r=mcomella

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/15611/#review14041

I'm not on the email thread so I can't verify that the exact copy is correct, but it's syntactically correct, grammatically correct, and consistent. I also see the previously mentioned "content" usage.
Assignee: nobody → liuche
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/d85445174174
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox 43
Tested with:
Nightly 43.0a1 (2015-09-16)
Active Mixed Content blocked with passive loaded: "Nightly has blocked some of the insecure content on this page." (https://goo.gl/GOA7QZ)
Mixed Content with passive loaded: "Parts of this page are not secure (such as images)." (https://goo.gl/frb7Ft)

Aurora  42.0a2 (2015-09-16)
Active Mixed Content blocked with passive loaded: "Aurora has blocked some of the insecure elements on this page." (https://goo.gl/jW4aQd)
Mixed Content with passive loaded: "This page has some insecure elements." (https://goo.gl/S75ZBB)

Do this strings updates need to be uplifted to Aurora?
Thanks for verifying and following up, Teodora! No uplift needed.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.