Closed Bug 1400661 Opened 2 years ago Closed 2 years ago
Fix IMAP Oauth2 error message "failed OAuth2 authentication"
No description provided.
Assignee: nobody → jorgk
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attachment #8909097 - Flags: review?(acelists)
Summary: Fix IMAP Oauth2 error message → Fix IMAP Oauth2 error message "failed OAuth2 authentication"
Comment on attachment 8909097 [details] [diff] [review] 1400661-oauth-error.patch (v1) Review of attachment 8909097 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- String freeze shortcuts :)
Attachment #8909097 - Flags: review?(acelists) → review+
https://hg.mozilla.org/comm-central/rev/0cb0da3a1056b960b1a7e8bf1daaee7893e9c127 Fix IMAP Oauth2 error message. r=aceman I agonised a bit over the best wording and finally made it: Authentication failure while connecting to server %S. That's better than Failed to connect to server %S due to failed OAuth2 authentication. Other options I considered were: Failed to connect to server %S: Authentication failure. Failed authentication while connecting to server %S.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 2 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → Thunderbird 57.0
Have you omitted the OAuth2 word now? It it too much detail? But it seems to me the code only emits this error specifically for OAuth2 failure.
Yes, since it's too technical. Type "OAuth2" into Google and see what you get. Google call this 2-step verification: https://www.google.com.au/landing/2step/. And Yahoo as well, not that we support that :-( https://au.help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN5013.html So OAuth2 is really tech-talk for the initiated, nothing for the broader masses.
(In reply to Jorg K (GMT+2) from comment #5) > So OAuth2 is really tech-talk for the initiated, nothing for the broader > masses. Tech talk is OK in error messages if it helps us better support users. They don't care, nor do they need to understand the terminology. It doesn't even need to be common terminology.
(In reply to Wayne Mery (:wsmwk, NI for questions) from comment #6) > Tech talk is OK in error messages if it helps us better support users. Users, who don't care about the wording, could ignore this tech fact. But why do you think we "must" remove this tech fact out of the error message? The sense of error messages should be to provide technical facts, which could help to solve the problems. In Thunderbird there are so many error messages, which provide not enough facts to help our users. These tech facts are important for us supporters in support forums. These tech facts give us the chance to ask the users for these facts and they have the chance to see these tech facts, when the error messages occurs again, so they can answer our questions. From the perspective of a supporter (German support forums) you should not remove all these tech facts out of error messages. Normal windows and dialogs should be "clean". But error messages should provide helpfull tech facts and keywords.
I changed the message from: Failed to connect to server %S to Authentication failure while connecting to server %S. Do you really think placing the work "OAuth2" into that message will help anyone? If so, please explain how and why. OAuth2 is *not* a commonly used term and if support staff see the "Authentication failure" in context with Gmail, they should know that this is about Google's 2-step verification.
> they should know that this is about Google's 2-step verification. Perhaps they should, but that doesn't mean they do know. Also, oauth2 is riddled throughout the bug reports and is an easily searched term. And if I count as "anyone", then yes, this would help me. As I said, or implied, anything that adds specificity in a Thunderbird error messages without adding confusion is a good thing. (If you had oauth2 in the error message and the user wasn't oauth2, that would be confusing, right?) And FWIW, I only just *today* made the connecting between the "2" in "oauth2" and "2-step".
Maybe I was wrong about OAuth2 and 2-step. According to Wikipedia, OAuth is an authentication protocol and 2 is version 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OAuth Somehow Google uses that, quote: Google supports OAuth 2.0 as the recommended authorization mechanism for all of its APIs. Reading through this, it's pretty clear to me that adding the term to the message is rather confusing that adding value. Yes, there are many bugs relating to OAuth2, especially since we only support it for Google and mail.ru (bug 1231642), but as far as I know, nothing else, especially not Yahoo, bug 1293958. I think the solution achieves what I reported: Separate a general connection failure from an authentication failure.
Good find > Separate a general connection failure from an authentication failure. On this I agree.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.