Closed Bug 1197369 Opened 7 years ago Closed 7 years ago

Copy for description of restricted profile mode (internal name only: Kinderfox)


(Marketing :: Copy, task)

Not set


(Not tracked)

Due Date:


(Reporter: barbara, Assigned: tpalmer)


>>Project/Request Title:
Copy for description of restricted profile mode (internal name only: Kinderfox)

>>Project Overview:
This feature is only available for Firefox on Android tablets >4.3 and is supposed to ship for 42. 

We will leverage the restricted profile mode that is available to Android tablets, allowing the main profile user to create profiles with restricted features. 

Since we want to focus on control and safety, we thought it would be very suiting to introducing this feature as something parents could use. By leveraging the restricted profile, we can help parents control their kids browsing experience.

The chrome of Firefox, logged in with a restricted profile, includes less tools and settings, allowing the kid to focus on browsing, e.g. no Developer Mode, Report Issue, Clear History etc. 

We decided to not call it Kidfox as it's not a new browsers, it's just using a feature that's based on the operating system and customizing to for our browser.

More here:

>> Creative Help Needed:
Copy:    Yes 
Design:  No 
Video:   No 
Other:  No

>>Creative Specs:
depends on Matej/marketing

>>CTA and Design:
As far as I know, no logo or anything else needed.

Here is different splash screen used:

>>Expected Launch Date:

>>Mozilla Goal:
Firefox Browser

>>Mozilla Creative Collective:

>>Points of Contact:,,
I was just informed that this has to be locked down by September 4th
Flags: needinfo?(matej)
Flags: needinfo?(jbalaco)
Adding a heads up that lead time should be built in if we end up needing trademark searches.
I'm adding Troy, another one of our writers, to this bug to help out with this.

Troy, there's a meeting on Friday that I'll add you to, but in the meantime, here's my take on this (apologies for any repetition of comment 0):

This isn't a feature that you'll be find and be able to enable within the browser. It's also not something that should have a brand name or sound like a different version of the browser. When the user is in a restricted profile on their Android tablet, this is the Firefox they will see, so from that person's perspective, this is Firefox (though it has a splash screen that comes up on load to let them know about the restricted profile).

The idea of the feature is to allow parents to create a streamlined and safer experience for their kids. From their perspective its a matter of choice and giving them more control, though from the kid's perspective there's actually less choice and control of their experience, which makes it a bit tricky.

Though the name won't appear in the browser, we need it for things like the Android landing page, blog posts, articles and snippets. I would think of it more as something descriptive than trying to capture it in a single word — but if you happen to come up with one that nails it, all the better.

Let us know if you have any questions.
Flags: needinfo?(matej)
Flags: needinfo?(jbalaco)
Assignee: jbalaco → tpalmer
Due Date: 2015-09-04
Component: Design → Copy
(In reply to Barbara Bermes [:bbermes] from comment #4)
> Not sure if you have seen this but Chrome calls this feature "supervised
> user"
> 74wGLbp2SBXAKRqq6kQXJOPdkEfKUmSI/edit#slide=id.g5bc2a912a_1_42

That's an interesting direction and take on it. It's a bit different since it's actually a feature in Chrome, but definitely something to consider as we continue to work on this.

I notice they also use "child browsing" and "childlock," both of which are really direct to the point of feeling aggressive.

Thanks for sharing that.
Hey everyone

I have a few options for the Kinderfox name for you to check out (along with a copy example for each so you can see how it reads in context).

If you have any questions, please let me know. Otherwise, feel free to comment in the doc.

These names all have the same PR risk profile as calling it 'Kinderfox'.

These all suggest that we created a new product or feature when we didn't. 
We extended support for an existing Android feature that's been around for a long time.
It's cool, but we don't want to make it sound like unique product or feature, which these awesome names suggest. 

e.g. It was dubbed 'Kid Mode' in a negative TechCrunch article back in 2013.

Comms recommendation is to stay technically factual and not try to amplify this functionality to make it seem like a unique, cross-platform, Firefox-only feature or product. 

Proposed language / example is "Support for restricted user profile mode on Android tablets"
Hi Alex,

I have to say I'm pretty confused by your comment. It wasn't clear to me that we were changing the name because of a PR risk. I thought it was more of a brand issue because Kinderfox sounded like a separate browser. The fact is that we did create something new. This browsing experience didn't exist in Firefox before.

I thought we were all on the same page after our last meeting, but now it sounds like you're recommending that we don't describe it at all. I'm absolutely fine with that, but then we don't need a single, unified way to talk about it if the story is that we're supporting Restricted Profiles on Android. I just wish that had been made clearer from the outset.

P.S. We may need a description like this if we want to talk about it on the Android product page. If we call it Restricted Profile there, I worry it's going to sound even more like we added a new feature to Firefox.
Hi Matej, sorry for the misunderstanding. 
My note is not about not-describing it, but rather the risk of giving it a name which makes it sound like a feature or product. 

My proposed wording from our meeting was "Support for restricted user mode on Android Tablets" and we discussed that the wording you'd propose might be along those lines - which clarify that this is built on top of an Android functionality and is not a standalone feature name, as we discussed.

Once this wording is pinned down, we will want to replace 'Kid Fox' and 'Kinderfox' references with this. 
We would also want the language consistent whenever we communicate about it.

For our purposes, the name does not need to be interesting or exciting - which all the proposed names you shared definitely are. We don't want press getting wrongly excited about a brand new product or feature which is not an accurate way to understand this functionality.
I'm going to have to disagree. 

Although and certainly initially it's a feature that is enabled when Android restricted profiles is also enabled, it's functionality that *is* different to other browsers and should be promoted. In addition, we're looking at *not* having to rely on the use of Android restricted profiles in the future so that parents can enable the functionality defined as Project Kinderfox without playing around at the OS level.

This is different to other browsers and is extra value and is a selling point that we should be proud of, and therefore should have words to describe what it is but also the functionality behind it. Thinking about the future, we also need a way of telling users how to enable this functionality that is intuitive.

I'll head over to the GDoc and throw in any comments I may have. 'Kinderfox' is not the right choice of term because there is a connotation of it being a separate browser / separate APK, but it's the functionality that we want to highlight both near term as well as medium term as the project morphs into something usable to a larger audience (it not just Android tablet users on 4.+ code).
Karen, will Kinderfox be the only way to use restricted profiles with Firefox, or is that a non-Kinderfox restricted profile use case?
In 42, the kinderfox feature set are enabled when Android restricted profiles are enabled. However, the plan down the road is to move away from that dependency and enable the kinderfox feature set proactively (ie not relying on Android restricted profiles). This opens up the feature to Android smartphones and tablets that are 'younger' than 4.2.
Did we make a decision on this? I am in favour of the family-friendly browsing options. 

- It's a positive word and includes the issue we are trying to address; tablets are most shared amongst family members and hence everyone can benefit from their own profile, restricted or not.
- To Kar's point: tt doesn't imply that this can only work for restricted profiles on Android and leaves it open to be used with our own family-friendly technology.
Also allows us to leverage the concept on iOS, too
Understood that Family Friendly works because it can grow with features and platforms.
For press to be clear in the meantime, I recommend that the full context (from the Gdoc) be used wherever we say 'Family Friendly Browsing' in discussing this specific feature. 

I.E. "Firefox for Android includes Family-friendly Browsing when you create a Restricted Profile on your tablet"

If this appears on the same page where the stand-alone name is used, it gives factual context to press. This mitigates the risk of press taking it out of context.

As I also mentioned, we recommend that this language be used consistently across public pages where 'Kinderfox' currently appears:

(Examples I found are)
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.