668108 - Create an update billboard for Firefox 5+

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

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

Description

[LegNeato]

We need an update billboard to prompt 3.6 to update to Firefox 5. Because Fx6 is so close we may want to target that instead or create a generic one.

We'll need the billboard localized as well.

The Fx4 version can be found @ http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/details/

Comment 1

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

When ar we going to get the content for l10n?

Comment 2

[John Slater]

+1 for creating a generic version - with releases every 6 weeks trying to do a unique one each time would be overkill.

- Christian, what's the deadline for this? Also, apologies if this is a dumb question, but http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/details/ is the smaller version of this billboard...aren't we using the bigger version now? (I forget the URL)
- Pascal, how much l10n time do you need? We ought to be able to do the content pretty quickly - only blocker is that Mayumi is out of town this week, and I'd like her to be the loop on what the general update messaging should be.
- Matej, can you help with copy once we have some direction there?
- Steven, can you flow the new text into the existing design once we have it?

Comment 3

[Matej Novak [:matej]]

Standing by for further instructions.

Comment 4

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

(In reply to comment #2)
> - Christian, what's the deadline for this? Also, apologies if this is a dumb
> question, but http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/details/ is the
> smaller version of this billboard...aren't we using the bigger version now?
> (I forget the URL)

It's a question of what versions are offered the billboard. All 3.5/3.6 versions only support the small billboard, and the request here is to do 3.6 -> 5.0 (or latest) so it needs to be small.  Billboards offered to 4.0+ can be big.

Comment 5

[LegNeato]

(In reply to comment #2)
> +1 for creating a generic version - with releases every 6 weeks trying to do
> a unique one each time would be overkill.
> 
> - Christian, what's the deadline for this? Also, apologies if this is a dumb
> question, but http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/details/ is the
> smaller version of this billboard...aren't we using the bigger version now?
> (I forget the URL)

We'd like it by August 16th.

I've pushed a stopgap (the Fx4 billboard s/4/5/) for the time being. I did not push any of the localized pages though.

Comment 6

[John Slater]

(In reply to comment #4) 
> It's a question of what versions are offered the billboard. All 3.5/3.6
> versions only support the small billboard, and the request here is to do 3.6
> -> 5.0 (or latest) so it needs to be small.  Billboards offered to 4.0+ can
> be big.

I knew there was a good reason - thanks for the explanation.

(In reply to comment #5)
> We'd like it by August 16th.

That seems doable. Mayumi, Matej and I will talk next week, and it shouldn't be too hard after that to get this wrapped up.

Comment 7

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

>- Pascal, how much l10n time do you need? We ought to be able to do the content pretty quickly - only blocker is that Mayumi is out of town this week, and I'd like her to be the loop on what the general update messaging should be.

That's a message for all locales so 3 weeks is a minimum to get all or almost all locales done, especially since some people are on holidays now.

Comment 8

[Grace Jimenez :grace]

hi slater.

opened a design request: bug 668587

this specific request is 3.6 to 5 but this will obviously be too late for august 16. which means the prompt would have to be 3.6 to 6. In addition, it sounds like we will also need one for 4 and 5 to 6. 

I think we need 2 things here.
1. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/details/ - to prompt 3.6 to 6 
2. https://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/aurora/details (in terms of size)- to prompt 4 & 5 to 6

- they should definitely not have the numbers (update to the latest etc) 
- we can discuss if we want to keep it more generic or highlight features in each release. 

thanks!

Comment 10

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

Hi all,

Jumping in here now that I'm back. 

I think we actually need 3 versions of the billboard:

1) 3.6 to latest version of Firefox (Fx 6, I'm guessing).
-This should be specific to 3.6 users, but generic in terms of latest version. -The tone should be less urgent than the messages we push when we stop supporting a version, but should still be somewhat forceful. 
-We should highlight "the new look, super speed, and even more awesomeness" as reasons for switching. Also like to make sure the words "Fast, free update" are included somewhere. 
-It might be worth adding something like "we will soon stop supporting this version of Firefox and recommend updating as soon as possible. 


2) 3.6 to latest version when we stop supporting 3.6, which I believe will happen in the next quarter or so, so might as well do it now. Should be based on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=492844&action=edit 
-We should highlight at the bottom,  "stay safe online, the new look, super speed, and even more awesomeness" as reasons for switching. 


3) 4.0+ to latest version (Fx 6)
-Tone should be friendly, and stress the benefits of using the latest and greatest.
-Something along the line of--We've been working hard to make sure you get the latest technology and features in Firefox fast. Upgrade now to make sure you're taking advantage of the best of Firefox. 
-Also mention that this is a fast and free upgrade.

Comment 11

[Robert Kaiser]

(In reply to comment #10)
> 3) 4.0+ to latest version (Fx 6)

Erm, I thought that was a minor update, not having any billboard...

Comment 12

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > 3) 4.0+ to latest version (Fx 6)
> 
> Erm, I thought that was a minor update, not having any billboard...

True, but I think we should have something more insistent to use when people haven't updated for a few cycles.

Comment 13

[John Slater]

Thanks Laura. So, the main difference between #1 & 2 is that #2 should be more ominous? ("This is an unsupported browser" type of thing).

Does anyone have the URLs handy from past versions of the scary sounding updates like that? I know we've done a few...would like to reuse a headline that worked earlier (and may already have been localized) instead of reinventing the wheel if possible.

I'm still a little unclear on the value prop for version #3...how is it different from the other ones (besides the unsupported 3.6 part)?

Comment 14

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to comment #13)
> Thanks Laura. So, the main difference between #1 & 2 is that #2 should be
> more ominous? ("This is an unsupported browser" type of thing).

Correct. 

> 
> Does anyone have the URLs handy from past versions of the scary sounding
> updates like that? I know we've done a few...would like to reuse a headline
> that worked earlier (and may already have been localized) instead of
> reinventing the wheel if possible.

I don't have URLs for all, but here are some:

-http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/4.0/details/'
-http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.6/details/
-http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details/

> 
> I'm still a little unclear on the value prop for version #3...how is it
> different from the other ones (besides the unsupported 3.6 part)?

I think the value prop for #3 is two fold:
1) Each release contains a ton of new, cutting-edge features and improvements that users should want to take advantage of. 
2) I believe its true to say that being on the latest version ensures that you have the latest security updates. 

#2 is therefore in addition to what I had above. Does that help?

Comment 15

[John Slater]

Laura, thanks for the input. My proposed copy for the first two cases is below - am definitely open to feedback or revisions, though, so let me know. Also, fyi, I wrote it to match the current character counts pretty closely so everything should fit.

(Will work on the 3rd one later today.)

1) Below is my proposed copy for 3.6 -> current version. It's not all that different from what we had for Firefox 4, but I think that's ok (let me know if you disagree)...makes l10n a little easier too. There's not really room for the "3.6 won't be supported much longer" unless we cut something else, though. 

The New Firefox is Here!
Quick, easy and free update
* Fresh new look 
* Much faster than Firefox 3.6
* More awesomeness than ever

2) For "3.6 -> current once 3.6 is unsupported", I was looking at http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details/ and it seems to cover everything we'd need here. Is there any reason why we can't just use that?

Comment 16

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to comment #15)
> Laura, thanks for the input. My proposed copy for the first two cases is
> below - am definitely open to feedback or revisions, though, so let me know.
> Also, fyi, I wrote it to match the current character counts pretty closely
> so everything should fit.
> 
> (Will work on the 3rd one later today.)
> 
> 1) Below is my proposed copy for 3.6 -> current version. It's not all that
> different from what we had for Firefox 4, but I think that's ok (let me know
> if you disagree)...makes l10n a little easier too. There's not really room
> for the "3.6 won't be supported much longer" unless we cut something else,
> though. 
> 
> The New Firefox is Here!
> Quick, easy and free update
> * Fresh new look 
> * Much faster than Firefox 3.6
> * More awesomeness than ever

This looks good to me John. 
> 
> 2) For "3.6 -> current once 3.6 is unsupported", I was looking at
> http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details/ and it seems to
> cover everything we'd need here. Is there any reason why we can't just use
> that?

Agreed--we don't need another one, after looking at that again.  I love when that happens!

Comment 17

[John Slater]

Annnnd, here's the copy for the "4.0+ to the latest Firefox" update window. Was written with the general format of https://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/aurora/details/ in mind, although I put a headline in place of the wordmark (which isn't needed here, imho). 

Frankly, I think this is a bit vague and not super compelling, so I'd welcome any suggestions on how to change that...it's a little tough when you're writing in generalities rather than some specific killer feature in Firefox 7 or whatever.

*************************************************

The New Firefox is Here!

* Enjoy the latest technology and new features
* Faster and more secure than ever
* Quick, easy and free update

Just click Get the New Version below.

Comment 18

[My]

DOn't think we should lead with "latest technology" but either "faster" or "new features" and can we make the first line more actionable like "Make sure to get the latest Firefox" (obviously please work your copy magic).  Also, agree on the vagueness so if there are specific features that would really help or something like 2X faster.  Thanks

Comment 19

[Robert Kaiser]

I still don't think we should waste any time on making a perfect billboard for 4.0+ to a newer version, as I still don't know of any situation where it would be shown with the current plans - they all get minor updates to the most-current version, AFAIK, and with minor updates we never show billboards.

OTOH, I can't wait for seeing 3.6 to newer live on the wire (the fewer users it has, the less we need to care about crash analysis there)! ;-)

Comment 20

[John Slater]

Take 2 (note: it's hard to add specific features, as the current strategy is for this to be a billboard that would be used as the standard communication for multiple releases vs any one in particular):

The New Firefox is Here!

* Download for faster browsing and new features
* Enjoy the latest technology
* Quick, easy and free update

Just click Get the New Version below.

Comment 21

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to comment #20)
> Take 2 (note: it's hard to add specific features, as the current strategy is
> for this to be a billboard that would be used as the standard communication
> for multiple releases vs any one in particular):
> 
> The New Firefox is Here!
> 
> * Download for faster browsing and new features
> * Enjoy the latest technology
> * Quick, easy and free update
> 
> Just click Get the New Version below.

I think this looks good John. Thanks!

Comment 22

[My]

Can we change "The New Firefox is Here!".  "The New" makes me think we are launching a new browser (not the latest version).  Ideas: 
- Get the latest Firefox!
- The latest firefox is here 
- Update your Firefox

Comment 23

[John Slater]

How about "Get the Newest Firefox!"...I like 'newest' better than 'latest', fwiw.

Comment 24

[My]

"Newest" is fine for me

Comment 25

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

What are the URLs for these billboards? (or who can I talk to to find out?)

Comment 26

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

I have no idea--Christian, Slater? Any thoughts here?

Comment 27

[Matej Novak [:matej]]

Christian Slater? He works for us now? ;)

Comment 28

[John Slater]

Unfortunately my cousin Christian Slater is unavailable today, you're stuck with me.

Given that the intent of these is to reuse them for multiple upgrades, do we need a new naming scheme that isn't based around version numbers? Or, do we just stick with the old one and do a different URL (with the same content) every 6 weeks? 

I don't have a strong preference on that - whatever is going to be better for the release engineers and webdev is fine with me.

Comment 29

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

Can anyone from the product team confirm if there are URLs already embedded in Firefox for these?

Comment 30

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

RelEng can use whatever URL is provided when we generate the updates. They're not embedded in Firefox.

Comment 31

[LegNeato]

Yep, we can change it and have something similar already:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details/

I'm thinking we should do:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/

I'm planning on doing that for the release notes and system requirements (redirecting to the proper versioned one) to get version numbers out of links/URLs

Comment 32

[John Slater]

Thanks Christian. I like where you're going with the direction in comment #31...let's do that.

Comment 33

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

+1.

Comment 34

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

What are we doing for visual style in these billboards?

I presume for the 3.6-oriented versions, we'll do an updated version of this (both for size and style): http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/5.0/details/

For the 4+ version, we do have the larger window used in http://mozilla-com-trunk.silverorange.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/  correct? How about visual style for this one? Should it essentially be the main Firefox website style/colors applied to that Aurora layout?

Comment 35

[John Slater]

Hey Steven. Your thoughts in comment #34 are exactly right. The 3.6-oriented version should just be a copy update to the existing small style we have now. 

The 4+ version is a little trickier, but I think applying the Firefox look to the current Aurora one should work just fine. The main difference is that we now have an actual headline instead of a big wordmark, so the formatting might have to change a bit, but otherwise it should match up pretty well.

Thanks!

Comment 36

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

The 3.6 -> latest version is setup in trunk in r93216:
http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/from-3.6.html

The 4+ -> latest version is coming next.

As for the 3.6->latest once no longer supported, it can change to the already existing: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details/

Comment 37

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

(In reply to comment #36)
> The 3.6 -> latest version is setup in trunk in r93216:
> http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/from-3.6.html

Missed the New->Newest change. Updated in trunk in r93217.

Comment 38

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

4.0+ version created in trunk in r93219.

http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/

Let me know if the giant Firefox background is too much. This is roughly the Firefox version of the existing Aurora page.

Comment 39

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to comment #38)
> 4.0+ version created in trunk in r93219.
> 
> http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/
> 
> Let me know if the giant Firefox background is too much. This is roughly the
> Firefox version of the existing Aurora page.

I like it--any other comments?

Comment 40

[John Slater]

Both new updates look great to me - thanks Steven!

Comment 41

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

Can I merge to stage and close this bug, or does it need to stick around for l10n versions? Pascal?

Comment 42

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

I need to evaluate the work for l10n here, no problem in merging to stage but I'd like to keep this bug open until I have launched translation work if there is some needed, thanks.

Comment 43

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

en-US version merged to stage in r93335. Reassigning to Pascal for l10n.

Ready for QA on en-US versions.

Comment 44

[raymond [:retornam] (inactive)]

qa-verified-trunk http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/

Comment 45

[John Slater]

Wondering about the timing here - is this a Fx6 launch dependency, or does it happen after the launch?

Comment 46

[LegNeato]

We're going to do it a week after launch I think...there are some other product issues to work through before we turn on the fire hose to 3.6

Comment 47

[John Slater]

Good to know, thanks Christian. 

Laura M or Laura F, should we decouple this from the Fx6 dependencies bug then?

Comment 48

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

Sure thing.

Comment 49

[LegNeato]

(In reply to Christian Legnitto [:LegNeato] from comment #46)
> We're going to do it a week after launch I think...there are some other
> product issues to work through before we turn on the fire hose to 3.6

And I keep forgetting that in order to do the manual check for updates it pops up a window anyway, ugh. Not much we can do about it now though, my bad.

Comment 50

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

(In reply to Christian Legnitto [:LegNeato] from comment #49)
> (In reply to Christian Legnitto [:LegNeato] from comment #46)
> > We're going to do it a week after launch I think...there are some other
> > product issues to work through before we turn on the fire hose to 3.6
> 
> And I keep forgetting that in order to do the manual check for updates it
> pops up a window anyway, ugh. Not much we can do about it now though, my bad.

is there anything more we need to do for the en-US version of these? I know we're waiting on the others to get localized.

Comment 51

[LegNeato]

For the record it isn't a huge deal for tomorrow. We're just leaving the 5.0.1 update offers in place. So users will get:

3.6.20 -> (check for updates) -> 5.0.1 -> (check for updates or wait 24 hours) -> 6.0

Once we have the billboard localized we will remove the 5.0.1 step and make the 3.6.20 -> Firefox 6 be advertised/prompted rather than manual

Comment 52

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

pascalc, is there a separate bug for l10n ? What's the status there ?

Comment 53

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

I am late on this one, I'll probably let Milos deal with it while I am on holidays

Comment 54

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

I am late on this one,  I gave instructions to Milos to deal with it while I am on holidays

Comment 55

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

Hello,

Unfortunately, I'm a bit lost in all these comments. Would you please note all three versions followed by URLs you want them to appear on, in one comment.

After I get that, I'll get onto it ASAP.

Comment 56

[LegNeato]

* For Fx4+: http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/

* For Fx3.6: http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/from-3.6.html

* For < Fx3.6: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/unsupported/details/ (note this has been there for a while so likely is already localized)

As for where they should appear, s/en-US/[LOCALE]/g.

Comment 57

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

L10n version pushed to trunk in r94502. One thing though before I file bugs: `firefox/latest/details/from-3.6.html` has it's own RTL style support; what about `firefox/latest/details/index.html`? I can make that, if needed, just asking whether you intentionally left that, or by mistake.

Comment 58

[LegNeato]

I believe it was a mistake.

Comment 59

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

RTL support for "http://www-trunk.stage.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/latest/details/" in r94544. I will file per-locale bugs soon.

Comment 60

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

Bugs filed for all locales on mozilla.com. I have made them block this one.

Comment 61

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

Bugzilla is trippin' and it removed all dependencies. I don't wanna spam more, so I won't take that back.

Comment 62

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

Also, we'd like to have this after Fx 7--do you have an estimate of when we could have a majority of this complete?

Comment 63

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

Adding dependencies again.

Comment 64

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

Steven,

Can you please push en-US/en-GB to production as we'll need those for major update.

Comment 65

[Steven Garrity [:sgarrity]]

I can't push to production, but I'll see if rik or jlongster can do it for us. The two trunk revisions for the en-US version are r93216 and r93217.

I wasn't involved in the en-GB version, but Milos, it looks like your commit for en-GB was r94502.

Comment 66

[Milos Dinic [:Milos]]

(In reply to Steven Garrity from comment #65)
> I wasn't involved in the en-GB version, but Milos, it looks like your commit
> for en-GB was r94502.

Indeed, but I can't push to prod too, so I thought while you're on it, you can do en-GB too. Pascal, can you please push en-GB to prod?

Thanks.

Comment 67

[Anthony Ricaud (:rik)]

Pushed en-US with r96099.

Comment 68

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

We're going to use the from-3.6.html billboards on Nov 8th, when Firefox 8 ships. I've just nudged bug 695742 for ja, is everything else ready to go or has a fallback in place ?

Comment 69

[Nick Thomas [:nthomas] (UTC+12)]

Attachment: Intersection of locales for 3.6.24 and 8.0

Milos asked me to verify what the current state is, given we're shipping Fx8 tomorrow and need the from-3.6.html billboards available for anyone who goes looking for an update.

The instersection is calculated from
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/raw-file/FIREFOX_8_0_RELEASE/browser/locales/shipped-locales > shipped-locales-8.0
http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.2/raw-file/FIREFOX_3_6_24_RELEASE/browser/locales/shipped-locales > shipped-locales-3.6.24

To test I loaded
 https://www.mozilla.org/%LOCALE%/firefox/latest/details/from-3.6.html
for all the locales. The results are:

* be, bn-IN, cy,  or, ta, vi fall back to en-US content, which matches the the dependent bugs that are still open (except for ja ...)
* ja (and ja-JP-mac) redirect to http on mozilla.jp, bug 695742 has been reopened to host using https on mozilla.org instead
* si (Sinhala) is a 500 Internal Server Error response
https://www.mozilla.org/si/firefox/latest/details/from-3.6.html
* en-GB and nn-NO redirect to en-US and nb-NO with trailing ? on url

The 500 error for si and the http for ja I think we should fix for Fx8, the others I don't think we should worry about.

Comment 70

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

Ja and si are fixed, all nn-NO pages redirect to nb-NO content as per their team request (they no longer have any resource to maintain the nn-NO variant of their language), the trailing ? was an artifact of the redirect, it was fixed on stage but not pushed to production, I just pushed that fix to prod.

en-GB always remaps to en-US and we do the locale detection for the download box directly on the en-US page.

The remaining locales are very small locales that we lost over the summer, we haven't found replacements yet so yes it's ok to fallback to English for them.

Thanks

Comment 71

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

This will be going on on Dec 1st.

Comment 72

[Laura Mesa [:lmesa] [:lvmesa]]

Sorry, this is not true.

Comment 73

[Pascal Chevrel:pascalc]

all dependencies fixed