Closed Bug 615751 Opened 10 years ago Closed 7 years ago

build new "scary" major update pop-up

Categories

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

defect
Not set

Tracking

(Not tracked)

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: jslater, Assigned: sgarrity)

References

()

Details

Attachments

(1 file)

Hey Steven. We need to build a new major update pop-up to help move people off unsupported releases. Lee has put together a design that's a bit scarier than past ones and also uses the new nova look & feel. PSD is here:

http://intothefuzz.com/leetom/Mozilla.com/PSD/scaryupdate_04.psd

Please note that this is scheduled to go live around 12/20, so although this is a high priority overall, it's less time-sensitive than the various redesign bugs you're working on and can wait until after those are taken care of.

Let me know if you have any questions - thanks!
Christian, what would you recommend as the URL here? (using http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6/details/ as a reference)
Hm, good point. All the billboards up to now have been encouraging users to update, so it made sense to stick them with the release we were advertising. This one is different.

Perhaps put it in http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details? We'll have to manually alater the update snippets to point to the new location, or do a transparent apache redirect for users with a 3.0 user agent (likely better). We can also later put a scarier http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0.19/firstrun/ into http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/firstrun and add another redirect for the proper versions as well in the future.
A few quick notes on taking a look at the design (screenshot attached):

It appears that the "URGENT!" headline uses the MetaBlack font - it seems like it might be a bit of overkill to include a 40Kb web font for this one word. Alternately, we could render it as an image, but that presents l10n issues. If you want to stick with the webfont - let me know.

The blue "Get the upgrade" text looks like it could be a link - is it? If not, maybe we should avoid blue for this text?

The white bar at the bottom  ("Not interested? Tell us why.") appears visually attached to the bottom of the box. As the height of the elements above it is mostly determined by text size, which varies a bit per platform, it's a bit tricky to guarantee this positioning. This is especially true if other locales have longer strings.

I also thought it might serve the dialog if we were to simplify the fonts uses a bit. Including family, size, weight, italics, and color, this little window has six different font styles.

Another small note on the copy - though it may be a non-issue: When I read the text "This version of Firefox is no longer protected against online attacks.", it wasn't clear whether "this version" meant the version I'm running, or the version being offered for download (it's obviously the former, but the ambiguity could be distracting).
(In reply to comment #4)
> Another small note on the copy - though it may be a non-issue: When I read the
> text "This version of Firefox is no longer protected against online attacks.",
> it wasn't clear whether "this version" meant the version I'm running, or the
> version being offered for download (it's obviously the former, but the
> ambiguity could be distracting).

Good point... "this" -> "your"?
Thanks for the detailed feedback Steven. Here are some thoughts from me & Mayumi:

(In reply to comment #4)
> It appears that the "URGENT!" headline uses the MetaBlack font - it seems like
> it might be a bit of overkill to include a 40Kb web font for this one word.
> Alternately, we could render it as an image, but that presents l10n issues. If
> you want to stick with the webfont - let me know.
I hear what you're saying about file size, but we definitely want to make an impression on people here, and I think MetaBlack helps that. Am leaning toward keeping it.

> The blue "Get the upgrade" text looks like it could be a link - is it? If not,
> maybe we should avoid blue for this text?
It's meant to be a link (like we've done in past pop-ups).
 
> The white bar at the bottom  ("Not interested? Tell us why.") appears visually
> attached to the bottom of the box. As the height of the elements above it is
> mostly determined by text size, which varies a bit per platform, it's a bit
> tricky to guarantee this positioning. This is especially true if other locales
> have longer strings.
We can tweak this. Lee, can you make that less visually attached to the bottom of the box?

> I also thought it might serve the dialog if we were to simplify the fonts uses
> a bit. Including family, size, weight, italics, and color, this little window
> has six different font styles.
Lee, any thoughts?
 
> Another small note on the copy - though it may be a non-issue: When I read the
> text "This version of Firefox is no longer protected against online attacks.",
> it wasn't clear whether "this version" meant the version I'm running, or the
> version being offered for download (it's obviously the former, but the
> ambiguity could be distracting).
Yeah, that's a good catch. Let's definitely change to "Your version", per comment #5.
Looks good to me, thanks. Steven, what do you think?
(In reply to comment #8)
> Looks good to me, thanks. Steven, what do you think?

Yup, that should make for a simpler and more robust implementation. Also, In case it's not obvious, my design/copy suggestions are just that, suggestions. They can always be greeted with a 'thanks-but-no-thanks'.
(In reply to comment #6)
> I hear what you're saying about file size, but we definitely want to make an
> impression on people here, and I think MetaBlack helps that. Am leaning toward
> keeping it.

In the first instance we'll be using this message with Firefox 3.0.x, which doesn't support Web Fonts AFAICT. We need to make sure we test that display on 3.0.x falls back to something that still works.
(In reply to comment #10)
> In the first instance we'll be using this message with Firefox 3.0.x, which
> doesn't support Web Fonts AFAICT. We need to make sure we test that display on
> 3.0.x falls back to something that still works.

Excellent point. 3.6 was the first version that supported WOFF, so we probably can't use MetaBlack for quite a while.
3.5 supports downloadable TrueType but not WOFF, correct. It degrades gracefully, so it wouldn't hurt to stick it in, yes? Does the browser still download the font even though it can't use it?
(In reply to comment #12)
> 3.5 supports downloadable TrueType but not WOFF, correct. It degrades
> gracefully, so it wouldn't hurt to stick it in, yes? Does the browser still
> download the font even though it can't use it?

We don't have a license for the TrueType version of the Meta font family - only WOFF/EOT.
Hmm, good point. Lee, what do you think? Any ideas for an appropriately bold & scary header that doesn't involve Meta Black?
Are we using all capped Trebuchet for the homepage (pre-metaBold)? Maybe we can be consistent with that standard, if so.
(In reply to comment #15)
> Are we using all capped Trebuchet for the homepage (pre-metaBold)? Maybe we can
> be consistent with that standard, if so.

Not really - the only people who will see Trebuchet on the site are Safari users, so it's not all that relevant here. Might be better to go with our italics alternate instead.
Verdana Bold doesn't look bad here:
http://intothefuzz.com/leetom/Mozilla.com/JPG/scaryupdate_10.png

Georgia Bold Italics doesn't look too bad either:
http://intothefuzz.com/leetom/Mozilla.com/JPG/scaryupdate_11.png
Thanks Lee. I'm liking the Verdana one...let's try that.
You probably don't need it, Steven, but I updated the PSD here FYI:

http://intothefuzz.com/leetom/Mozilla.com/PSD/scaryupdate_05.psd
Didn't we take the survey page (destination of "tell us why") down? We should make sure that's not a 404, perhaps obviously.
Was going to ping Christian today about this (Comment 20).  So does this survey already exist?  Or do we need to create a new one?  If the survey does exist does it need to be updated?
We'd likely need to modify the one mentioned in http://blog.mozilla.com/metrics/2010/01/28/why-people-dont-upgrade-their-browser-part-iii/ if it still exists, otherwise we need a new one.

CCing some metrics folks.
Blake/Chris - And was this survey (Comment 22) localized?
Not sure, didn't work on this project.  

We can run an A/B experiment if the call to action in done in html/css/js.  Is there a reason the "Get the new version" button isn't part of this page? (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6/details/)
Don't forget that the billboard is encapsulated in a dialog which has buttons to action the update (eg: attachment 489263 [details] for Firefox 3.0.19). If we encourage people to use the link, they'll go to a download page, hopefully download, and hopefully apply it. We know from Funnelcake studies that only about a quarter of people will complete this process (when the initial download is unsolicited by us). On the other hand, if they use the button on the dialog then the updater does all the work for them. I don't know of any data for the success of that path but I'm happy to assert that it's much higher than ~25%. So I'm
makes sense to me.  thanks Nick.
Depends on: 616525
(In reply to comment #24)
> We can run an A/B experiment if the call to action in done in html/css/js.

You only get the first two.

> Is there a reason the "Get the new version" button isn't part of this page?
> (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6/details/)

Because web pages can't install software, it must be done from chrome/dialog. If we make exceptions for this one page the page becomes an awesome hacking target, not to mention whatever mechanism we add that tries to grant privs to some web content and not others.
okay. in that case, I'm not going to be able to help A/B test this page.  

Do we have any alternatives?  We can run product experiments with Test Pilot, but most everyone with using Test Pilot is on our latest beta.
Where are we at with this? We are pretty close to when we wanted to do the prompt (~16th/17th).
(In reply to comment #29)
> Where are we at with this? We are pretty close to when we wanted to do the
> prompt (~16th/17th).

Steven, what's your time/availability like this week?
I've got this built out in the nova branch (since it will be launching before this goes live) in r79452.

There's no link to the survey yet (since the survey isn't setup yet).

Also, I seem to recall the frame that this page displays in being different widths on Windows. Can anyone confirm? See this old screenshot for reference:
https://bug412372.bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=328969
The width is controlled by the locale for all platforms on 3.6 and prior (bug 480178 fixed this on trunk and will hopefully be approved for 3.6.14).
(In reply to comment #31)
> There's no link to the survey yet (since the survey isn't setup yet).

Where are we with the survey, then?
To loop back around, we want to have this go live early January now (fully localized with the supporting survey localized as well)
Could someone from l10n look at the HTML/CSS we have setup. I should be l10n friendly, but I can make fixes/improvements as necessary.
I don't see any technical blocker for l10n.
Adding bug 623506 as a dep here, hope it's the right place.
Depends on: 623506
This should be added, because people generally don't like to update because they see no reason too, telling them that their version is no longer secured will be a good way to persuade them otherwise.
Component: www.mozilla.org/firefox → www.mozilla.org
Component: www.mozilla.org → General
Product: Websites → www.mozilla.org
I think this can be closed
An old bug. Closing.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 7 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.