368395 - Encourage the user not to restore after crash if the dialog has been thrown recently

Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

(Camino Graveyard :: General, enhancement)

Description

[froodian (Ian Leue)]

If the browser crashes because of one of its loaded pages, you don't want to restore, since you'll fall into a crash loop, which is why we throw a dialog.  In order to help users to not fall into the loop, we should suggest the "Don't restore" option more heavily if the post-crash dialog has been thrown recently.  Per some IRC discussion, this should probably include changing the text of the dialog, and possibly changing the text of the buttons as well, to encourage the "don't restore" option.

Comment 1

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

We can decide on some nice strings and land them before b1 even if we don't have the code ready, if need be.

Comment 2

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

The other day Ian proposed: 

"Camino has detected that your last two sessions closed unexpectedly.  This may indicate that one of your pages is causing Camino to quit unexpectedly.  Do you still want to restore these pages?"

I think that sounds good.  Are we changing the title and the button labels, too?  (We don't want to change button order or default button, though, to prevent people who won't read the text from pressing return and losing their session data.)

Comment 3

[froodian (Ian Leue)]

I think changing the title to something like "Restore previous pages again?" might be useful, but the button labels should probably stay the same, for lack of anything not contrived to change them to.

Comment 4

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

So

"RestoreAfterCrashAgainTitle" = "Restore previous pages again?";
"RestoreAfterCrashAgainMessage" = "Camino has detected that your last two sessions closed unexpectedly.  This may indicate that one of your pages is causing Camino to quit unexpectedly.  Do you still want to restore these pages?";

and same buttons as the existing warning?

(Also, next time we touch that file, someone needs to fix "RequiredVersionNotMet"--it's unused for now but was left in for when we drop 10.3 support--as some eagle-eyed localizer will see "10.2" and wonder why that's still 10.2 when we claim 10.3 is required....)

Comment 5

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Per irc, lose the second "unexpectedly", so:

"RestoreAfterCrashAgainTitle" = "Restore previous pages again?"; "RestoreAfterCrashAgainMessage" = "Camino has detected that your last two sessions closed unexpectedly. This may indicate that one of your pages is causing Camino to quit. Do you still want to restore these pages?"; 

Same buttons as the existing warning.

(And s/10.2/10.3/ in "RequiredVersionNotMet")

Comment 6

[froodian (Ian Leue)]

Strings in comment 5 checked in on trunk and MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH.

Comment 7

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Pulling the 1.1? so we keep this in mind as we review feedback.

Comment 8

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

I haven't heard anyone reporting lots of demand for this, so minusing.  We can reconsider for 1.5.x as needed.

Comment 9

[Guillaume Déflache]

Wouldn't not reloading the last focused tab help? Maybe just open a blank page for it with only the URL filled in and focused on, and restore the other tabs as usual?

What does Firefox do?

Comment 10

[froodian (Ian Leue)]

> I haven't heard anyone reporting lots of demand for this, so minusing.  We can
> reconsider for 1.5.x as needed.

This seems to not be an issue.  the vast majority of the time, if loading a specific tab made it crash, it won't have had time to get saved.  We've also had zero feedback of this type.  I say WONTFIX and pull the strings.

Comment 11

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

We've only been out less than a week; I'd say wait until we get closer to 1.5.1, but otherwise I agree with the WF.

Comment 12

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

1.5's been out for about two months now, and I'm not aware of any feedback about needing the "you're in a crash loop; you might want to exit" warning.

We missed 1.5.1, but I'm OK on ripping out the strings and then WONTFIXing this on all branches.

Comment 13

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

Anyone opposed to someone (Ian?) removing the strings?

Comment 14

[Smokey Ardisson (offline for a while; not following bugs - do not email)]

New strings from comment 5 removed on the 18branch and trunk (they're still on the 1_5 branch just to not break string freeze), a=ss on irc.  WONTFIXing.