604442 - Notify user when non-compatible version of Flash is used w/Private Browsing

Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE

(Firefox :: Private Browsing, enhancement)

Description

[Kev Needham [:kev]]

Versions of Flash prior to 10.1 do not clear associated Flash history for a Private Browsing session when that session ends. When a Private browsing session is started, and a version of Flash earlier than 10.1 is in use, users should be warned that they are using a version of Flash that does not support Private Browsing, and/or that their history may not be cleared. 

Ideally, users will also be given additional information about the current available version of Flash, and the opportunity to update to that version (MAYBE tie in information from the plugin check and/or PFS source).

Comment 1

[(no longer active)]

We don't do this for other plugins, why is Flash an exception here?

Comment 2

[Kev Needham [:kev]]

I don't think it's the exception, I'd like to look at it as a model. If we have plugins that we know don't support private browsing, they'd be great to add as well. I think Flash is probably the biggest bang for buck as a starting point.

Comment 3

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

Yes, Chrome disables all add-ons in PB mode because, well, they can't be trusted. They don't do that for plugins, which is a weakness.

More specifically, though, Ehsan, the idea here is that some versions of Flash *do* respect Private Browsing mode, and we should be encouraging users to move to those versions.

Comment 4

[(no longer active)]

OK, I see.

Forwarding to UX for the desired UI.

Comment 5

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

To be clear, nobody's proposing this for Firefox 4; this is squarely in the "future".

Comment 6

[Alex Faaborg [:faaborg] (Firefox UX)]

>Forwarding to UX for the desired UI.

The desired UI is that we control the distribution and updating of Flash.  I'm concerned that our recent strategy of making a larger and larger warning icon (and direct statements like "You should" and "right now") is undermining the user's confidence in our ability to protect their privacy and security (which is ironic, because that's what we are actually doing).

But since we aren't able to do that yet, a warning icon and message placed at the bottom of about:privatebrowsing will directly address the needs of this bug (while causing some undesired side effects to our brand).

Comment 7

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

(In reply to comment #6)
> The desired UI is that we control the distribution and updating of Flash.  I'm

Then you're suggesting we WONTFIX this bug? Otherwise this comment seems to be off-topic and not really that helpful.

> But since we aren't able to do that yet, a warning icon and message placed at
> the bottom of about:privatebrowsing will directly address the needs of this bug
> (while causing some undesired side effects to our brand).

I think the request was for suggested wording and an indication of which icon to use. If you're unable to provide that, please help us understand who is.

Comment 8

[Alex Faaborg [:faaborg] (Firefox UX)]

>Then you're suggesting we WONTFIX this bug?

No, I'm providing a distinction between "UI for this bug" and "the desired UI"

>I think the request was for suggested wording and an indication of which icon
>to use.

Icon needs to be warning as stated above, I can provide a mockup but you indicated in comment #5 that this was future work.

Comment 9

[Kev Needham [:kev]]

I'd like to understand what would be required to get this into Fx4. I know it's at least a string change, but it looks like Fx4 will be much better served by Flash 10.1 and higher, and I'd like to push this a little and determine whether it's high-risk for taking after feature freeze, if it comes to that.

Comment 10

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

(In reply to comment #9)
> I'd like to understand what would be required to get this into Fx4. I know it's
> at least a string change, but it looks like Fx4 will be much better served by
> Flash 10.1 and higher, and I'd like to push this a little and determine whether
> it's high-risk for taking after feature freeze, if it comes to that.

A patch with the updated wording would be a good start. We might also just want to blocklist older versions of Flash.

Comment 11

[(no longer active)]

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I'd like to understand what would be required to get this into Fx4. I know it's
> > at least a string change, but it looks like Fx4 will be much better served by
> > Flash 10.1 and higher, and I'd like to push this a little and determine whether
> > it's high-risk for taking after feature freeze, if it comes to that.
> 
> A patch with the updated wording would be a good start. We might also just want
> to blocklist older versions of Flash.

Beltzner: if you want this to happen for Firefox 4, please mark it as blocking and assign it to me.  Otherwise it won't have enough priority in my queue to get to Firefox 4.

Comment 12

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

I don't think that this bug blocks, really. Nice polish, but not a blocker. I'd rather we just blocklist older versions of the plugin and resolve it that way.

Comment 13

[u597032]

Adobe Flash is no longer supported.