Closed
Bug 737345
Opened 14 years ago
Closed 13 years ago
Add-ons 'Check for updates' incorrectly states 'updating addons'
Categories
(Toolkit :: Add-ons Manager, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
WONTFIX
People
(Reporter: christianoliff, Assigned: sachin)
References
Details
Attachments
(2 files)
|
1.83 KB,
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
|
9.33 KB,
image/png
|
Details |
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120319 Firefox/13.0a2
Build ID: 20120319042013
Steps to reproduce:
Select Tools > Add-ons > Check for updates.
Actual results:
It at first states 'Updating Add-ons' (when it's actually checking for updates).
Expected results:
It should state 'Checking for updates to your add-ons' instead.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: Untriaged → Add-ons Manager
Ever confirmed: true
Product: Firefox → Toolkit
QA Contact: untriaged → add-ons.manager
| Assignee | ||
Comment 1•13 years ago
|
||
Attachment #739959 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
| Assignee | ||
Comment 2•13 years ago
|
||
Assignee: nobody → sachinhosmani2
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Comment 3•13 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 739960 [details]
A screen shot
Boriss, could you look at this? I vaguely remember there being some discussion about this during the original rewrite, so not sure if we want this wording change or not.
This alters the status messages seen when you click the "Check for updates" menuitem. Currently it shows "Updating add-ons", then "Your add-ons have been updated". This should change it so it shows "Checking for updates", then "Your add-ons have been updated".
The checking and installing states happen at the same time, so we can't have "Checking for updates", followed by "Updating add-ons", then "Your add-ons have been updated".
Attachment #739960 -
Flags: ui-review?(jboriss)
Comment 4•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Blair McBride [:Unfocused] (Back from the dead. Mostly.) from comment #3)
> Comment on attachment 739960 [details]
> A screen shot
>
> Boriss, could you look at this? I vaguely remember there being some
> discussion about this during the original rewrite, so not sure if we want
> this wording change or not.
Wow, this takes me back. Christian, thanks very much for filing this bug. It's true that the first stage of the update process is checking for updates and not actually installing those updates.
However, saying "Updating add-ons" and then "Your add-ons have been updated" was a deliberate design decision. The reason is that, from the perspective of users, knowing what stage exactly the update process is on is far less important than knowing the crux of what's going on - an update to their add-ons. True, we check for updates first, but this isn't information that users can act on or likely are interested in. From their perspective, they began a process to update add-ons, and the next thing they need to know is when this is done.
This is part of a larger design direction Firefox tries to take of telling users the information that is most likely to be relevant to them and not much more. After all, there's a cost to telling users multiple message: it complicates the process, risks flashing messages to quickly to be read, and frankly gives users superfluous information. This is largely the same direction that led us to remove the quickly-flipping-messages status bar information in Firefox's bottom left. Sure, it may be useful to some developers to know exactly what stage of the process they're in, but we want to direct our user experience to what is most useful to the most people rather than what may be useful to some. After all, add-ons and plugins can largely fill the gaps here.
I'm going to WONTFIX this bug, since it's already been in discussion and the reasons the decision has made have not changed, but thanks again for filing - and I hope you'll feel very welcome to file more bugs for Firefox behavior that seems… off. :)
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 13 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #739959 -
Flags: review?(bmcbride)
Updated•13 years ago
|
Attachment #739960 -
Flags: ui-review?(jboriss)
Comment 5•13 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Jennifer Morrow [:Boriss] (Firefox UX) from comment #4)
[...]
> However, saying "Updating add-ons" and then "Your add-ons have been updated"
> was a deliberate design decision. The reason is that, from the perspective
> of users, knowing what stage exactly the update process is on is far less
> important than knowing the crux of what's going on - an update to their
> add-ons. True, we check for updates first, but this isn't information that
> users can act on or likely are interested in. From their perspective, they
> began a process to update add-ons, and the next thing they need to know is
> when this is done.
[...]
What about highlighting the two-step process, as follows?
-- at the top of the add-on manager --
(1) Checking for updates…
(2a) No updates found.
(2b) Updating add-ons…
-- in a doorhanger or notification bar --
(3a) {number} {pluralizable:add-ons} have been updated
(3b) {number} {pluralizable:add-ons} will be updated after you restart {application}
The idea is that for users like me, who have intentionally disabled auto-install of updates, "Updating add-ons" is contrary to fact: it's a lie or a misdirection. Even when I click "Check for updates", what it does is nothing more than that "checking", until or unless I decide to apply some or all of the updates found.
For users who left these prefs at their default (Update automatically), I believe that it is still interesting (especially if many add-ons are installed, making the check-and-install a lengthy process) to see how far we are: first we check if there are any updates, then either we stop because there aren't any, or we install them. And displaying first "Checking for updates" then "Installing updates" is no less clear even from a newbie user's POV: on the contrary, IMHO it makes it crystal clear that we are (first) checking if an update is necessary, and (then) applying it if it is, all of it obeying the "Check for updates" order the user had given.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•