Closed Bug 558361 Opened 15 years ago Closed 15 years ago

Implement Getting Started Page Design A (A/B Test)

Categories

(www.mozilla.org :: General, defect)

Product:
www.mozilla.org
Component:
General
Type:
defect
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
VERIFIED FIXED

People

(Reporter: lmesa, Assigned: sgarrity)

References

(
URL
)

Details

Attachments

(2 files)

Copy Changes
24.00 KB, application/msword
Details
Footer Image
490.44 KB, image/png
Details
Please Implement the linked design for A/B testing: http://clients.theroyalorder.com/Mozilla/FILE_SHARE/GettingStarted_optionAandB.zip There is one small section of copy that will be finalized next week (Tips & Tricks) section. I will add that copy as soon as I get it.
Assignee: nobody → steven
Blocks: 558365
Attached file Copy Changes —
I've attached copy, with the changes highlighted. There was one correction to a current feature. All other content is new.
This test will only run for Windows users, using XP screenshots.
Are the text and links for the Popular Support Articles sidebar section ready?
They're ready in the sense that they all exist. Do you want me to pull them together and put them here on this bug?
Ah, I see they are all listed on the SUMO front page - I'll steal them from there and get you to review/confirm them once I have committed.
Excellent. Thank you!
This page is setup in trunk in r65877. Preview here: http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/central/test-a Ready for QA
Whiteboard: qa-wanted
One thing I forgot to mention, the mobile promo at the bottom is actually a rotating snippet, displaying all of the our current snippets from our Start Page. Is that going to be an issue?
(In reply to comment #8) > One thing I forgot to mention, the mobile promo at the bottom is actually a > rotating snippet, displaying all of the our current snippets from our Start > Page. Is that going to be an issue? What do you mean by an issue? I don't see it working right now; should I hold off testing until that's implemented? The rest of the page looks good. I've tested: * links * doctype validation * layout
The snippet shouldn't affect the test, so let's not worry about it. On a different note, how quickly does this page load? Do we need all of those separate JS and CSS files? Ryan, can you chime in here?
(In reply to comment #10) > On a different note, how quickly does this page load? Do we need all of those > separate JS and CSS files? Ryan, can you chime in here? Steven would probably know best, but it appears most of the JS isn't needed (jQuery & YUI). Stats code might still be needed. I think the CSS is necessary, but could be concatenated if we're worried about perf in this test. Since this is a test I would assume you don't want to change much otherwise you won't know if performance or the design affected the test.
(In reply to comment #10) > The snippet shouldn't affect the test, so let's not worry about it. fine by me.
We'll run into problems if some variations load quickly while others don't. I think it's important to at least partially optimize the page load speed.
What's the control for this test? The current Getting Started page? If so, that page isn't heavily optimized (beyond our typical best-practices). This first test page almost half as many HTTP requests as the original (24 on this vs. 40 in original). The total file size is a bit heavier on this version, mostly because we're embedding a font.
My main point here is that page load speed matters a lot. Many Firefox users have slow connections and must wait 10+ seconds for some of our pages to load. It's possible, maybe likely, that a worse design will beat a better design just because it loads faster. But, if these pages perform radically differently, speed won't significantly affect the results. I guess it makes sense to go ahead and implement these pages and then optimize them later if the test results are similar.
Where are we here?
As far as I understand, we're all set on trunk.
(In reply to comment #17) > As far as I understand, we're all set on trunk. Looks good to QA, too; removing "qa-wanted" keyword.
Whiteboard: qa-wanted
Whiteboard: push-needed
Attached image Footer Image —
Apologies for the late critique, but do we need the brown footer? If so, the formatting looks a little off (it does not always extend to the bottom of the page).
Also, the Twitter icon links to: http://www.facebook.com/Firefox?v=wall
Whiteboard: push-needed
Also , the Facebook Icon links to: http://twitter.com/firefox
The Twitter/Facebooks links are fixed in trunk in r66191. As for the footer image (comment #19), we could create a new shorter image for this shorter footer, or drop it - I'm just following the PSD in this case. You do only see the cut-off footer if your screen is tall enough to show the entire page without scrolling - something I can do when the browser is maximized on a 1900x1200 display, but not a common scenario. If you have to scroll to see the bottom of the page, the footer does not look cut off.
In that case, let's keep the page as is. I'm setting up the test now.
Whiteboard: push-needed
spoke too soon, I need this pushed.
Merged to stage in r66230.
Buchanan--let's push!
I thought we got you Kubla access?
r66950 in production
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/central/test-a verified fixed on production
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Component: www.mozilla.org/firefox → www.mozilla.org
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: