Closed
Bug 213186
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 20 years ago
Please remove 'Cookies are delicious delicacies' from Options->Privacy->Cookies
Categories
(Firefox :: Settings UI, defect, P2)
Firefox
Settings UI
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
Firefox1.0beta
People
(Reporter: pmjcovello, Assigned: mconnor)
References
Details
(Keywords: fixed-aviary1.0, Whiteboard: [have patch])
Attachments
(3 files, 6 obsolete files)
48.22 KB,
image/png
|
Details | |
7.38 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
1.61 KB,
patch
|
mconnor
:
review-
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030714 Mozilla Firebird/0.6 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030714 Mozilla Firebird/0.6 The inaccurate description 'Cookies are delicious delicacies' appears under Tools-Options-Privacy-Cookies. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Tools->Options 2. Click Privacy. Expand 'Cookies'. Actual Results: 'Cookies are delicious delicacies' Expected Results: 'Cookies are files that some websites use to keep track of their users. They can only be accessed by the originating server, and are usually not harmless. If you so choose, you can delete them in this section.'
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
I don't know if "...are usually *not* harmless..." [emphasis mine] is really accurate or necessary in a new description.
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•21 years ago
|
||
taking QA contact, sorry about the bugspam
QA Contact: asa → mconnor
Some additional thoughts... with all the scare on cookies going on in the media, some people believe cookies are complete privacy-destroying tools that store everything from your credit-card number to your pet's names. Rather than the paragraph below, I'd put an even shorter line (though it should still be more informative than the 'delicacies' thing) along with a clickable hyperlink or thingymabob to a longer explanation). This can be an excellent opportunity to set the record straight about what cookies are and aren't... E.g. - Subtly emphasise the fact that a cookie stores information on your computer and cannot access your private life unless you type it in - Suggest blocking 3rd party cookies ('for the originating website only') - Use a softer wording instead of 'keep track of users' - Discuss uses of cookies rather than technicalities: instead of 'a cookie can keep data for your next visit' say 'a cookie can remember your password so you don't have to enter it again'. I also believe the "usually not harmless" wording in the previous comment was a tautology and should've been "usually harmless" or "usually not harmful" ;).
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
"Web pages can store bits of text called cookies on your computer so they can recognize you during future visits." ---- Other privacy options are only one sentence long, and they don't attempt to explain the implications of the options; I think it makes sense to try to hold to that standard. It simplifies the interface for newbies. As for steven's comments, I think this addresses them as best as possible: 1. It puts greater emphasis on the fact that web pages provide data rather than retrieve it. 2. I don't believe it's possible to suggest blocking 3rd party cookies given the writing style of the dialog. 3. The wording matches the other options in the dialog. It's easy to understand (at least conceptually) for newbies. 4. It provides the most fundamental use of cookies, while de-emphasizing the technical details of how they work. It's also objective as to whether cookies are "good" or not. The whole point of a preference is letting the user decide :)
Reporter | ||
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
Sorry folks, 'usually not harmless' was a typo. I wanted to convey 'usually harmless', but anyway I agree with Steven and jbarros that opinions are not of the sort to put in the options dialog. I've been away for the last week, so I couldn't get back to you all. As for jbarros's description, I think that 'bits of text' sounds a bit unprofessional, but otherwise I'd say it's pretty good. PS - I've found a good resource for the hyperlink: http://www.cookiecentral.com/faq/
This is my first time dealing with diff files and such, so I hope I did everythign correctly.
Attachment #136539 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #136539 -
Attachment is obsolete: false
Attachment #136539 -
Flags: review?(blake)
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Ben M.: +<!ENTITY cookieExplanation.label "Web pages sometimes store bits of text called cookies on your computer so they can +recognize you during future visits."> I don't really like that description. It doesn't even mention that it can also store information, just says it can recognize you. Why don't we use an abridged version of what's on the Cookies FAQ? "A cookie is a text-only string that gets entered into the memory of your browser. It can be used to identify you or store information useful for future visits." P.S. I thought that description of cookies being delicious was, but when I saw it I agreed it was inappropriate and that's why I searched for this bug.
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
Oh, and btw, please provide a link to some webpage that talks about cookies within the description.
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 136539 [details] [diff] [review] Patch to use a slightly modified version of Jesse Barros description Sorry, I overwrote your changes accidentally with the collision (I didn't think that it would because I hadn't altered them). I'll apply them for you.
Attachment #136539 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #136539 -
Flags: review?(blake)
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•21 years ago
|
||
if we're going to link somewhere from a description, it should be Help
Comment 11•21 years ago
|
||
per comment 7: I think "text-only string" is way too technical a language to use here [especially for novices and international users that use the English version] Idem for "memory of your browser". Plus, is that statement factually correct in the first place? Can't cookies be stored on the computer's hard drive as well?
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
Do we really need to assume that people don't know what cookies are anymore? Seamonkey's blurb is gone now...
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
How about something using the phrase "session-tracking information" or something like that. still a bit technical, but if they are changing the cookie prefs anyway they should (probably, hopefully) have some clue about what that means. in any event, I agree the current "delicacies" phrase is not only inaccurate, it looks unprofessional. even if a new phrase isn't decided on it should be removed ASAP.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.0?
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking1.0? → blocking1.0+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Hardware: PC → All
Target Milestone: --- → Firefox0.9
Comment 15•20 years ago
|
||
Replace old description with: "Cookies are stored on your computer by websites in order to personalize your browsing experience." I wrote this description with the intent of being descriptive, while not implying that cookies are either good or bad.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149557 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 16•20 years ago
|
||
"Cookies are pieces of information stored on your computer by web sites in order to personalize your browsing experience."
Attachment #149557 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149557 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149559 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 17•20 years ago
|
||
I like the Yahoo! explanation on http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/cookies/details.html "A cookie is a small amount of data, which often includes an anonymous unique identifier, that is sent to your browser from a web site's computers and stored on your computer's hard drive."
Comment 18•20 years ago
|
||
Requesting blocking0.9 since there is a patch ready for this and this is somewhat high visibility.
Flags: blocking0.9?
Comment 19•20 years ago
|
||
I just saw this one and am voting since it is very unprofessional looking.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking0.9? → blocking0.9-
Updated•20 years ago
|
Target Milestone: Firefox0.9 → Firefox1.0beta
Updated•20 years ago
|
Priority: -- → P2
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149559 -
Flags: review?(mconnor) → review?(bugs)
Updated•20 years ago
|
Flags: blocking-aviary1.0RC1+
Updated•20 years ago
|
Whiteboard: Patch ready, needs review/checkin.
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #149559 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Comment 20•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #149559 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #152371 -
Flags: review?(mconnor)
Comment 21•20 years ago
|
||
This thing is a year old. Can't somebody just fix it for Pete's sake? I don't see the huge challenge in this one.
Comment 22•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #21) > This thing is a year old. Can't somebody just fix it for Pete's sake? I don't > see the huge challenge in this one. maybe if we suggested it would make the new theme look better it would get fixed right away. I have talked to at least one person I have installed firefox who asked if the "delicacies" phrase was the result of a virus attacking their browser :0 this *must* go in 1.0 final IMHO. it is not a feature, it is a bug.
Comment 23•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #22) > this *must* go in 1.0 final IMHO. it is not a feature, it is a bug. And it will. You can see the blocking flags are plussed. Please refrain from saying "get this in faster, it sucks". We know it sucks. It will get fixed. You can see there is already a patch. Once it gets reviewed, it can get checked in.
Assignee | ||
Comment 24•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 152371 [details] [diff] [review] Update for bitrot I really don't like the look of this. It looks really unpolished with this. Really, I should just fix this section to not suck, period. Hmm, that's an idea!
Attachment #152371 -
Flags: review?(mconnor) → review-
Updated•20 years ago
|
Assignee: bmo → firefox
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Whiteboard: Patch ready, needs review/checkin.
Comment 25•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #24) > (From update of attachment 152371 [details] [diff] [review]) > I really don't like the look of this. It looks really unpolished with this. > Really, I should just fix this section to not suck, period. Hmm, that's an > idea! > I'm taking this to mean that you're going to fix it? I've un-assigned myself from the bug.
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•20 years ago
|
||
yeah, there's a bunch of other bugs in here to smack. I like the wording, inasmuch as I like any wording ;)
Assignee: firefox → mconnor
Comment 27•20 years ago
|
||
should the patch get landed and then improved more as time permits? need to move quickly on this for the upcoming firefox 1.0 UI freeze. we need to start locking down to critical fixes in the next week or so.
Whiteboard: [have patch]
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #152371 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Comment 29•20 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #154131 -
Flags: review?(bugs)
Assignee | ||
Comment 30•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 31•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 154131 [details] [diff] [review] better patch, based on wording/layout from options dialog UI redesign >+ <hbox> >+ <description>&cookieRetention.label;</description> >+ <menulist id="networkCookieLifetime" >+ prefstring="network.cookie.lifetimePolicy"> >+ <menupopup> >+ <menuitem value="0" label="&acceptNormally.label;"/> >+ <menuitem value="2" label="&acceptForSession.label;"/> >+ <menuitem value="1" label="&askAboutCookies.label;"/> >+ </menupopup> >+ </menulist> >+ </hbox> use align="center" on this box to make the label line up nicely with the menulist. Your screenshot shows the alignment as being off. OK. r=ben@mozilla.org
Attachment #154131 -
Flags: review?(bugs) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 32•20 years ago
|
||
Attachment #154131 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #154132 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Keywords: fixed-aviary1.0
Comment 33•20 years ago
|
||
"Cookies are pieces of information stored by web pages on your computer." I don't have any 'web pages on [my] computer.' "They are used to remember login information and other data." The "Stored Passwords" section specifically states its purpose as recording login information, so there is potential confusion in this wording. A suggested rewording: Cookies are pieces of information stored on your computer by Web pages you visit. They are generally used to offer you a more personalized experience. And since you used "stored" in the definition, you might consider using that word instead of "set" for the first checkbox label.
Comment 34•20 years ago
|
||
Ok, I'm glad we got something in for now. Randall: I like your version but and the W in Web doesn't need to be capitalized, and "personalized experience" might mean nothing to a novice user How about this: "Cookies are information stored on your computer by web sites you visit. They generally keep track of how you want a site to look and who you are when logged in." I think someone should write up a help document on possible privacy/security issues with cookies, and provide links from this page of the preferences to the respective sections in that document.
Comment 35•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #34) > Ok, I'm glad we got something in for now. > > Randall: I like your version but and the W in Web doesn't need to be > capitalized, and "personalized experience" might mean nothing to a novice user > > How about this: > "Cookies are information stored on your computer by web sites you > visit. They generally keep track of how you want a site to look and who you are > when logged in." > > I think someone should write up a help document on possible privacy/security > issues with cookies, and provide links from this page of the preferences to the > respective sections in that document. My version: How about this: "Cookies are information stored on your computer by web sites you visit. They generally keep track of how you want a site to look and your identity when logged in."
Comment 36•20 years ago
|
||
diff -u against AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH of Sasquatch's version with Randall's set -> store change
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #154431 -
Flags: review?(mconners)
Comment 37•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 154431 [details] [diff] [review] diff -u against AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH Changing review? to the right person. But personally, I like the current description that's been checked into CVS. It's more concise.
Attachment #154431 -
Flags: review?(mconners) → review?(mconnor)
Assignee | ||
Comment 38•20 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 154431 [details] [diff] [review] diff -u against AVIARY_1_0_20040515_BRANCH store isn't more accurate, and that description is wrong on a few different levels, but I don't feel like going into details right now. The description we have is pretty good, and I don't think we should be focusing on stuff that's fixed already. There's a lot more fish to fry before PR1.
Attachment #154431 -
Flags: review?(mconnor) → review-
Comment 39•20 years ago
|
||
I think "identity" sounds more professional than "who you are". For the 50 seconds it would take to change, I think it would be worth it to put in and put this one to bed.
Comment 40•20 years ago
|
||
My patch says "identity". From my patch: -<!ENTITY cookieExplanation.label "Cookies are pieces of information stored by web pages on your computer. They are used to remember login information and other data."> +<!ENTITY cookieExplanation.label "Cookies are information stored on your computer by web sites you visit. They generally keep track of how you want a site to look and your identity when logged in."> I agree. It'll take a few seconds to check in the new patch, and this bug will be done.
Assignee | ||
Comment 41•20 years ago
|
||
Brian, what part of "no" do you consistently fail to understand? Its a wordy and imprecise description that I'm not in favour of, so I'm not going to check it in so you leave it alone. All I need to do is land on trunk and it'll be just as done, whether you agree or not.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 42•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #40) -<!ENTITY cookieExplanation.label "Cookies are information stored on your computer by web sites you visit. They generally keep track of how you want a site to look and your identity when logged in."> +<!ENTITY cookieExplanation.label "Cookies are files stored on your computer by web sites. They keep track of how you want a site to look and your identity when logged in to those sites.">
Comment 43•20 years ago
|
||
I thought about using the word "files" but I thought that might scare people by making them think that sites are gaining direct access to their hard drive. Its concievable that cookies could be stored in other things besides files, such as entries in a .db file or something, right?
Assignee | ||
Comment 44•20 years ago
|
||
Please stop spamming the bug by discussing something that's already been rejected. If you want to debate the merits of the alternate wording please take it to private email. And just as a note to the logically impaired, a .db file is still a file, last I checked.
Comment 45•20 years ago
|
||
As far as I know, decisions are generally something agreed upon at least by a
small group, historically, as opposed to decisions made by one person. Especally
when discussing UI, which is often a source of great turmoil when one person
hap-hazardly starts changing the UI on his or her own.
May I remind you that you said:
> Really, I should just fix this section to not suck, period. Hmm, that's an
> idea!
We are not spamming this bug trying to come up with a wording to replace what
you said was a temporary wording. Remember that this fix has not been put on the
trunk yet. You are dealing with short-term, while we are dealing with long-term.
Would you like us to take this discussion to the message boards? If it were
taken to email, it would not include people who might be interested in having
some input on the new wording.
Aside: My logic was quite accurate. A .db file is not "files", therefore the
wording is inaccurate if you say files.
Comment 46•20 years ago
|
||
That being said, I doubt people would agree on a wording anyway, so I'm satisfied that the "delicious delicacies" was removed.
Assignee | ||
Comment 47•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #45) > As far as I know, decisions are generally something agreed upon at least by a > small group, historically, as opposed to decisions made by one person. Especally > when discussing UI, which is often a source of great turmoil when one person > hap-hazardly starts changing the UI on his or her own. First off, decisions on Firefox ARE generally made by a single person, in this case Ben was the reviewer. Considering that he is the single person leading the project, and I used his UI spec as my blueprint, I think you're pretty much dead wrong and out of touch with regard to how we work on this project. You're also not even keeping in mind the Firefox Development Charter (or even the original version from the Phoenix days). I also find it alternately amusing/insulting that you are implying I'm making changes haphazardly. > May I remind you that you said: > > > Really, I should just fix this section to not suck, period. Hmm, that's an > > idea! > > We are not spamming this bug trying to come up with a wording to replace what > you said was a temporary wording. The quote was about fixing a number of outstanding issues with the prefpanel, since the existing UI was a stopgap that had existed for a few months due to backend changes in cookies. Please to be showing me where I said this was a temporary wording. I didn't even imply it. I did say there was bigger fish to fry, which meant that trying to "tweak" it was a fool's errand. Which isn't to say that I r-'ed the patch out of a priority-based motive. Really, the wording is bad, IMO, and that's where it should end, instead of talking about "just check in my patch and put this to bed" which completely ignores the previous decision on the patch. Remember that this fix has not been put on the > trunk yet. You are dealing with short-term, while we are dealing with long-term. The reason it hasn't landed on trunk yet is twofold: 1) I had to work on other fixes instead of dealing with a closed tree at that time, and 2) the locale info is in a completely different location and I'd need to modify the patch accordingly, which wasn't a priority. It has nothing to do with the short or long term usage of the wording. Again, a baseless assumption. > Would you like us to take this discussion to the message boards? If it were > taken to email, it would not include people who might be interested in having > some input on the new wording. The wording as it stands is final, unless you can convince myself or Ben of the reason it needs to change. I doubt that's going to happen, considering its Ben's wording, and you've failed utterly to convince me. > Aside: My logic was quite accurate. A .db file is not "files", therefore the > wording is inaccurate if you say files. Sorry, I thought you were aware that we store cookies in a single file, I guess I shouldn't assume you know that much.
Comment 48•20 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #47) > (In reply to comment #45) > > As far as I know, decisions are generally something agreed upon at least by a > > small group, historically, as opposed to decisions made by one person. Especally > > when discussing UI, which is often a source of great turmoil when one person > > hap-hazardly starts changing the UI on his or her own. > > First off, decisions on Firefox ARE generally made by a single person, That is too sad. Whatever happened to "teamwork", and "building consensus"? > > > Really, I should just fix this section to not suck, period. Hmm, that's > > We are not spamming this bug trying to come up with a wording to replace > Please to be showing me where I said this was a temporary wording. I was also under the impression that it was a work in progress and open to suggestions. > Sorry, I thought you were aware that we store cookies in a single file, I guess > I shouldn't assume you know that much. That was a pretty low blow, let it go, Joe. :-)
Comment 49•20 years ago
|
||
Mike, can you go ahead and fix this on the trunk, too? It's showing up on my dependency list in bug 214267.
Comment 50•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 258295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Assignee | ||
Comment 51•20 years ago
|
||
Yes, people will hate me for a long time for this, and I'm even blamed by name in Wikipedia's article. Bah.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 20 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 53•20 years ago
|
||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#Delicious_delicacies The original text was inserted by Blake Ross, one of the lead developers of Firefox. It was replaced by Mike Connor. After this happened, the following remarks were made by Blake Ross over IRC: <blake2> congratulations mconnor <blake2> you just destroyed a legend! On August 22, 2004, version 0.1 of the Delicious Delicacies extension (http://www.squarefree.com/extensions/delicious-delicacies/) was released by Jesse Ruderman. This extension restores the old description of cookies. As of November 22, 2004, this extension is in version 0.4.1.
Assignee | ||
Comment 54•18 years ago
|
||
sorry for bugspam, long-overdue mass reassign of ancient QA contact bugs, filter on "beltznerLovesGoats" to get rid of this mass change
QA Contact: mconnor → preferences
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•