308060 - Rewrite install-blocked message to reflect reality

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox :: Security, defect)

Description

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

We get lots of duplicate invalid reports of the XPInstall blocked message
reporting the wrong site, because we are telling users the wrong thing: the
purpose of the whitelist is to stop sites from annoying users by throwing up a
modal install dialog, not to keep them from having to decide whether to trust
the site actually serving the XPI. But the blocked message says "To protect your
computer, Firefox prevented this site (www.securityfocus.com) from installing
software on your computer." when what we need to be saying is "To protect your
sanity, Firefox prevented this site (www.securityfocus.com) from prompting you
to install software on your computer." The second change is easy, but I'm not
quite sure how to put "To protect your sanity" in just a few words.

Comment 1

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: patch v.1

When in doubt, take it out. There's just no way four words can express "Because
it's possible for a site to throw up the modal XPInstall prompt, and to detect
if you cancel and throw it up again, %S prevented..."

Comment 2

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

Can we use "asking" instead of "prompting", like so:

xpinstallWarning=%S prevented this site (%S) from asking you if it could install
software on your computer.

Comment 3

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Sure, if you are positive that's what you want. Two things: to me, "if it could
install" goes back toward the "this site is the one installing the software"
that I wanted to get away from, since it's often not true, and "could install"
gives me a strong echo of my third grade teacher saying "of course you can go to
the bathroom; the question is whether or not you may." Have I lost all my sense
of grammar, and it's actually correct? (Not that I want "if it might install"
instead.)

I realize there's a reason why you're the UI guy, and I'm the one with a
reputation for being incomprehensible: say the word (a second time) and I'll
attach your version.

Comment 4

[Mike Beltzner [:beltzner, not reading bugmail]]

(In reply to comment #3)
> Sure, if you are positive that's what you want. 

Hm. The issue that I care about is switching from the tecchie "prompting" to the
somewhat more understandable "asking", and all your points are valid, so ... 

v2:
xpinstallWarning=%S prevented this site (%S) from asking you to install software
on your computer.

Comment 5

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Comment on attachment 198108 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v.1

v2 text sounds great to me, but Mano says I need to rev the entity name so the
change stands out to l10n down the road, and I have to figure some way of doing
that without churning everything or wrecking the lxrability of the related
buttons and accesskeys and prefs.

Comment 6

[Phil Ringnalda (:philor)]

Attachment: patch v.2

Comment 7

[Asaf Romano (gone)]

Comment on attachment 222146 [details] [diff] [review]
patch v.2

r+a181=mano taking comment 4 as a ui-review ;)

Comment 8

[Asaf Romano (gone)]

1.8 branch:
Checking in browser/base/content/browser.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/base/content/browser.js,v  <--  browser.js
new revision: 1.479.2.136; previous revision: 1.479.2.135
done
Checking in browser/locales/en-US/chrome/browser/browser.properties;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/locales/en-US/chrome/browser/browser.properties,v  <--  browser.properties
new revision: 1.20.2.6; previous revision: 1.20.2.5
done

trunk:
Checking in browser/base/content/browser.js;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/base/content/browser.js,v  <--  browser.js
new revision: 1.629; previous revision: 1.628
done
Checking in browser/locales/en-US/chrome/browser/browser.properties;
/cvsroot/mozilla/browser/locales/en-US/chrome/browser/browser.properties,v  <--  browser.properties
new revision: 1.26; previous revision: 1.25
done