Usability: Rename Shiretoko to firefox 3.5

[Alexander Pas]

Binary package hint: firefox-3.5

first of all: I'm aware of http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/161-FAQ-Why-is-my-firefox-3.5-still-called-Shiretoko.html

I'm going to rant here...

--- Rant ---

Out of all possible appoaches we could've takenanother point to consider is that branding is part of top-level UI
 as a project, we have taken the worst possible from a usability view.

This'll ACTIVELY SLOW FIREFOX 3.5 ADOPTION due to it'll never be installed on a "regular" machine, and as a consequence, this'll ACTIVELY SLOW HTML 5 ADOPTION as the "regular" ubuntu user doesn't get the support for it.

and don't come to me with "apt-get this, synaptic that" or similar BULLSHIT, a "normal" user doesn't know anything about that, the best they know is the "Add/Remove Programs" Dialog.

Now, taking Microsoft as an example, (yes!) If they would be doing this, we would still have double the numbers of IE6 and IE7 users, yet the only reason why we see any proress in that part, is that they put those updates in the Automatic Updates.

now, adressing some things:
-"we only use official branding for our default browser (default for jaunty is 3.0)"
We deliver Windows XP with IE6, so you won't be updated to IE7 -- (read: BULLOCKS, straw man argument.)

-"also we explicitly want both to be installable side by side"
How about providing a firefox3.0 just like a firefox3.5 command, and having the firefox command always pointed to the latest version?

- "and same branding would make them indistinguishable on your desktop"
So what... easily solved, install first one, rename link, install second one, done, or something much more elegantly!

- "another point to consider is that branding is part of top-level UI"
Yet we have 2 different branding packages for it, why not adding a third (for shiretoko), so those wanting another branding have enough choice! (read: BULLOCKS, just install abrowser for it.)

also: if your mother installs firefox, which version does your mother expect to get? the latest? usuallly yes, yet in this case she shouldn't install firefox (which she knows by name and icon.) but install some obscure (in her opinion) browser.
(did you know how long it took before she went to linux and firefox...)

--- End of Rant ---

Also: https://wiki.mozilla.org/ReleaseRoadmap
Last release to be supported with official security/stability updates no more than six months following general available of current release

This impacts at least 8.04 as it will never be "auto-upgraded" to firefox 3.5, and left with an upstream unsupported firefox 3.0 version.

[Alexander Pas (alexanderpas)]

also, taken from twitter:

http://twitter.com/ubermichael/statuses/2518104106
I installed #Firefox 3.5 on #Ubuntu from via synaptic. Now it seems to be called #Shiretoko. Is that normal?

http://twitter.com/shadysamir/statuses/2511596982
ummm... Is FF 3.5 supposed to replace 3 in #ubuntu or is it normal to end up with both FF 3 and a #Shiretoko ?

[Micah Gersten (micahg)]

This is the Firefox 2 package.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

We will rename shiretoko to firefox in karmic soonish; when that happens we will provide backports somewhere outside the archive.

The other point you are asking for (auto upgrade ffox 3 installs on stable ubuntu releases) is not going to happen; AFAIK, even mozilla doesn't auto upgrade folks to a major new release branch right after it came out.

[Mark (mark-wege)]

Is there any way to do this manually in Jaunty? I managed to change the browser string to firefox so that I got rid of some problems caused by that. This is by the way something you at least should consider to fix also in Jaunty. I guess many people do not know the cause of the problems when some pages do not work correctly and when addons do not update because of this.
Is there a way to fix the name manually which is used in the rest of the problem?

[Endolith (endolith)]

It doesn't have to auto-upgrade, but there should be a way to install Firefox 3.5 so that it REPLACES Firefox 3.0, instead of confusingly co-existing alongside it with duplicate profiles, a different name, and poor desktop integration. Can't a package (3.5) specify that another package (3.0) conflicts with it, so that the old version is removed when the new one is installed?

[Micah Gersten (micahg)]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At present, Firefox 3.0 is necessary for full functionality of Firefox
3.5 on Jaunty. This requirement will be removed for Karmic.

Also, the versions do not inherently conflict and some people might
like to keep both until all add-ons are compatible with Firefox 3.5.

Endolith wrote:
> It doesn't have to auto-upgrade, but there should be a way to install
> Firefox 3.5 so that it REPLACES Firefox 3.0, instead of confusingly co-
> existing alongside it with duplicate profiles, a different name, and
> poor desktop integration. Can't a package (3.5) specify that another
> package (3.0) conflicts with it, so that the old version is removed when
> the new one is installed?
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkp3JAwACgkQTniv4aqX/VlLvQCeNrcxNNNw42nw3+6jvpVHKYDG
UfwAnjRyivRwRZigUTcmuKLFA4WT5QVF
=36ku
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Michele Mattioni (mattions)]

+1 to have firefox 3.5 default also in Jaunty named firefox.

I can't use gears and I relay on them for gmail offline.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 04:04:41PM -0000, Michele Mattioni wrote:
> +1 to have firefox 3.5 default also in Jaunty named firefox.
>
> I can't use gears and I relay on them for gmail offline.
>

Gears does not really care about the brand. I used it with minefield
and shiretoko. So your problem is unrelated.

 - Alexander

[Mark (mark-wege)]

That is not correct. I have not tested it with Gears, but have encountered problems with Facebook. Chat did not work correctly. Since it is not only the local name which was changed, but also the useragent-string some pages, especially those which make heavy use of newer browser technologies test the browser and send a different page, depending on the version. Since Shiretoko is an unknown Browser, things like this Facebook very well happen.
So I really see the need to release a fixed-branding-version also for jaunty. Not all users will know about the problem and the cause. So they wont be able to help themselves.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 03:01:53PM -0000, Mark wrote:
> That is not correct. I have not tested it with Gears, but have encountered problems with Facebook. Chat did not work correctly. Since it is not only the local name which was changed, but also the useragent-string some pages, especially those which make heavy use of newer browser technologies test the browser and send a different page, depending on the version. Since Shiretoko is an unknown Browser, things like this Facebook very well happen.
> So I really see the need to release a fixed-branding-version also for jaunty. Not all users will know about the problem and the cause. So they wont be able to help themselves.

Yes, but gears and all decent stuff works. If there is a broken
website now and then it doesnt matter much. They are even broken if
they see "Ubuntu" in it sometimes. Drop a support request on
facebook. If they want to test for browser version, they should match
the gecko part and not the firefox one.

 - Alexander

[Michele Mattioni (mattions)]

I'll double check, but I remember gears (official, from google) didn't want to install when I used the browser in a plain version as it comes from the repo.

When I changed the User Agent to Firefox, gears installed and worked.
(Although lately the memory usage of Firefox sucks with gmail.)

[Michele Mattioni (mattions)]

@ Alexander

Gears doesn't work here with the name Shiretoko as User Agent.

Check the screenshot.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:56:58PM -0000, Michele Mattioni wrote:
> @ Alexander
>
> Gears doesn't work here with the name Shiretoko as User Agent.
>
> Check the screenshot.

well. install gears from the archive. or get the .xpi manually. what
you see there is again a website bug. It will work. If it doesnt its
not the user-agent.

 - Alexander

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:56:58PM -0000, Michele Mattioni wrote:
> @ Alexander
>
> Gears doesn't work here with the name Shiretoko as User Agent.

opened http://code.google.com/p/gears/issues/detail?id=938 now for you
... you can star the issue if to express that you are affected.

 - Alexander

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

oh ... if you are on 64-bit it, google doesn't offer 64-bit binaries. we have gears in the archive since karmic though.

[Endolith (endolith)]

"It's not our fault that your web browser doesn't work. It's The Web's fault. Go file bug reports on every website that you're having problems with, and if they don't fix it, tough."

[Michele Mattioni (mattions)]

I can confirm that gears works on gmail, although you have to bypass the security check on the website.
I starred the bug on google code.

Thanks

[James (james-ellis-gmail)]

Having 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 working side by side is an important aspect - consider if you are a web developer who needs to test sites in multiple browsers. It's a bonus to have the different versions working side-by-side.
We don't really want to duplicate the IE debacle of having to have a virtual machine per version of IE (to get testing results exactly right).

The real problem here is the naming, I don't see any benefit to an end user in calling Firefox 3.5 "Shiretoko" - a name that has little linkage to Firefox except for the advanced user.
Shiretoko is still called "Preview Browser - Shiretoko Web Browser" in Kickoff (KDE), not sure what it is called in Gnome but I assume it takes the text from "/usr/share/applications/firefox-3.5.desktop". Typing "Fire" into Krunnner only brings up "Firefox 2 web browser" and "Firefox Web Browser" - no sign of the Firefox I use every day.

Finally, I don't really want to edit a file that will get overwritten in the next update or fiddle with about:config - not really user friendly solutions.

All this name change does is confuse end users. Why not just call it "Firefox 3.5", use the same icon and reduce the confusion to nil?

[Timbba (timbba)]

> All this name change does is confuse end users. Why not just call it
> "Firefox 3.5", use the same icon and reduce the confusion to nil?

This is a real good question but where is the answer from Ubuntu Mozilla Team to this?

I totally agree with James on naming. This is just confusing to end user. Usability should be considered better!

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.5/+bug/399517/comments/3

Alexander also has a blog about it:
http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/161-FAQ-Why-is-my-firefox-3.5-still-called-Shiretoko.html

[Endolith (endolith)]

> Having 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 working side by side is an important aspect - consider if you are a web developer who needs to test sites in multiple browsers.

That's fine, but most people are not web developers. There should be a way to install them side-by-side, and a way to replace the old version with the new. I believe this can be done with separate packages, in which one package "conflicts" with the old version, so installing the new automatically uninstalls the old.

[Timbba (timbba)]

> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox-3.5/+bug/399517/comments/3
> Alexander also has a blog about it:
> http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/161-FAQ-Why-is-my-firefox-3.5-still-called-Shiretoko.html

Yes, I have read those. These are just development reasons, which do not consider end user usability at all. End users are the users that Ubuntu is developed for, not developers.. so usability is important!

I can understand naming beta or alpha release of Mozilla Firefox 3.5 to "Shiretoko", but naming officially stable release as a code name is just confusing to user and for my opinion really stupid too.

[James (james-ellis-gmail)]

Pointing an end-user off to an obscure snippet of what looks to be an IRC log vaguely related to Ubuntu does nothing to solve the issue at hand.

"and same branding would make them indistinguishable on your desktop"

huh? I've had no problem running "Firefox 2 Web Browser" and "Firefox Web Browser" side by side - they aren't indistinguisable - I just check the menu entry or the About Firefox entry. You'll probably also find that the people running multiple Firefox versions side-by-side tend to know what they are doing and are able to distinguish between versions quickly.

Renaming a really well known product has actually caused more problems. Try finding Firefox 3.5 in Krunner or Kickoff. Try telling someone to "Open Firefox 3.5" in Ubuntu - see what the result is. Nada. You have to search for "browser" or "preview browser" or "Shiretoko" (if you know what the new name is).

Would be interesting to see some user testing results from the design decision behind this.

[DDdW (danieldennisdewit)]

ok, the status says: won´t fix.

Isn´t there any way to purge my firefox settings and reinstall FF3.5 ? so to get rid of shiretoko

[LumpyCustard (orangelumpycustard)]

Should this be marked as Won't Fix as it is sorted in Karmic?

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

This will not be fixed in Jaunty however has been fixed in Karmic

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

Please refrain from changing status' without leaving a comment.
Please read the above comments before changing status' to see why we set them.

[Florian Demmer (fdemmer)]

i just apt-get upgraded my karmic and now i have shiretoko instead of firefox. i had firefox before. wtf!?

[Micah Gersten (micahg)]

Please file another bug as it's not the same issue. Thanks. This bug
was for the Firefox 3.5 preview in Jaunty being called Shiretoko.

On 01/14/2010 11:25 AM, fdemmer wrote:
> i just apt-get upgraded my karmic and now i have shiretoko instead of
> firefox. i had firefox before. wtf!?
>
>