Talk:Mozilla Firefox/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14 →

Contents 1 Weasel words (regarding <a ping>) 2 Mozilla Labs 3 Firefox 3 OS themes 4 Scollable references 5 Third most used browser? 6 Hideous screenshot 7 Preview release 8 Firefox 3 Beta 3 includes Colour Management

Weasel words (regarding <a ping>)

The weasel words are back. LWN reports that "by some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware." That statement contains weasel words. I'm sure that there are some people who say that. The problem is, who? If we cannot attribute the statement "this feature will turn Firefox into spyware" to any reliable source, we should replace the unattributable opinion with a concrete fact. You can read WP:AWW for more information. -- Schapel 14:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, they then note that this is not true in the next sentence. John Nevard (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the sentence I used? "On the other hand, the feature causes discomfort for some privacy advocates, because unlike supporting general-purpose features that can be used for click-tracking, supporting the ping attribute explicitly sacrifices users' privacy for the benefit of web developers and especially advertisers." Jruderman (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it has the same problem as the original wording. Opinions should be attributable to a specific person or group, and if they cannot be, concrete facts should be used in their place. -- Schapel (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Usually the usage of weasel words means the statement is one that would need a source or caveat, or in fact an indicator that the statement is unsubstantiated. It would seem that one of these is the case here. By what account would be it spyware? Who has actually said so, or is it simply that it would fall under currently defined definitions of spyware from <insert reputable party here>? If the latter, is this a notable concern without anyone of authority actually stating it, or is it simply extrapolation a la WP:OR based on expectations?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Users (anonymous users, specifically) seem to keep adding the unattributed opinions without discussing it on the talk page or even giving any reason in the edit comment. Perhaps it's time to protect the article again? -- Schapel (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the IPs made a sleeper account (Iofur Raknison (talk · contribs)) and he's now engaged in an edit war with me. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Don't this page or this one and their comments (I can find more if you want) clearly show people's concerns about privacy and informed consent (see the definition of spyware) regarding the ping attribute ? These are the "some acounts". --Fenring (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, or eg. this (and if you want to tell me that Slashdot is not reliable source, then remove references to slashdot from the article, please). Iofur Raknison (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The title of the thread in the slashdot link is "Useful or Spyware?" There are subsequent user-posted comments that mention spyware. However, the Slashdot link in the article shows an interview with the VP of Mozilla Labs. There's a clear difference between user commentary and actual statements made by an authority of the subject. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute that you can find "some accounts" of people calling Firefox spyware. You can also find "some accounts" of people saying Firefox crashes every five minutes. Should we add those opinions to the article? Or how about "some accounts" of people stating that Firefox has no bugs? No, we need to draw the line somewhere so that this encyclopedia article contains relevant and useful information, not just any old things that some small group of users says. Surely if there were legitimate privacy concerns over the ping attribute, a privacy advocacy group or notable privacy activist would make a public statement? The LWN article is about the most notable source anyone can find, and even they say that the ping attribute has advantages over other means of tracking users and is arguably better. Therefore, that's what we should say in the article. Got it now? -- Schapel (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to use the word "Spyware" either. But it's important to explain the ping advantages (speed) and disadvantages (it adds another privacy concern, just like cookies, javascript or http referer). Anyway, I'm in favor to move all these arguments to the HTML5 article. It's related to the spec, not to Firefox's implementation. --Fenring (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, IMO it is important to explain difference between site that is using some form of link tracking (user pays with privacy and bandwidth etc.) and site that is NOT using any form of link tracking (privacy, speed, etc.).

I think it is important to mention this attribute in this article, because Firefox is (AFAIK) the first popular browser that is going to implement this feature (despite opposition from its users, BTW). One of the biggest potential beneficiary from support for this attribute is Google and there is relationship between Mozilla Corp. and Google Inc.

BTW -- cookies and JS are very useful features from user's point of view, but "ping" attribute gives completely nothing for end-user (and it can take away sth from him - privacy, security etc., especially that most users will be completely unaware of this thing). Iofur Raknison (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Iofur, it's not really the place to debate about this feature. But, compared to a redirection, I'm well aware of ping's drawback for the end-user : lack of privacy and trancparency if the ping urls are not clearly shown. I'm also aware of the benefits : urls easier to read, it will be faster (the ping is sent in a non-blocking way), the user can turn it off. This last one is of course a benefit for the advertisers too. But it will not benefit Google or any other ads publishers. Because if your browser doesn't support ping or if you turn it off, they won't know you've clicked on the link, and thus won't ask money to the advertiser. Publishers can just hope the implementation of this feature will attract more user and advertisers on their site, I think. But as I said, it's not the point. I think we should just explain that the feature is controversial because, despite its advantages, it introduces another way to compromise privacy. --Fenring (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"the user can turn it off. This last one is of course a benefit for the advertisers too." - are you kidding? This is definitely not a benefit from the advertisers point of view. That's the reason why they're not going to completely switch from older methods (especially redirects) to this attritbute - but "ping" will be very good as an additional method.

"Because if your browser doesn't support ping or if you turn it off, they won't know you've clicked on the link, and thus won't ask money to the advertiser." -- there is big IF - if they use method with ping instead of redirects/JS hacks/whatever they use now. IMO it will be just another, additional way of tracking users, and I am pretty sure that Google is going to use it on pages with search results. Most users will not disable this, because they will be completely unaware of the thing -- and you help achieving this if you remove all material about this attribute from article about Firefox. Moreover, sites that want to track clicking on links can detect if user's browser supports this attribute -- and if not they can just use old methods (more "expensive" in terms of bandwidth, but at least working).

Anyway, I'm done with this. I'm too tired. Feel free to add whatever sales pitch you read in "reliable sources" like Mozilla devs/Google/webmasters employed by advertisers/security experts employed by Google, etc. I don't really care about content of WP at this point anymore, and I have better things to do than editing it. Bye. Iofur Raknison (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

the <a> 'ping' has been removed in FF 3 now. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415168 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.249.55 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Labs

I have added links to the Weave, Personas and Prism announcements on the Mozilla Labs page. --192.154.91.225 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 OS themes

I feel it is advisable to not distinguish XP and Vista for now, since according to the Firefox 3 Product Requirement List (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Product_Requirements_Document#OS_platform_integration), the feature that would distinguish between XP and Vista installations is currently "At Risk". Vista currently applies the same theme as XP, so the two should share the same box for now, until changes occur. Thanks. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. It'll most likely be fixed by the end of today. By the way, when taking the screenshots, please take a picture of the wikipedia homepage, not this article. --Titan602 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And without the Wikipedia logo, please, so the screenshot is a little more free. --AVRS (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe the Wikipedia logo should be shown in a screenshot, as it helps identify the page as part of Wikipedia (see the Internet Explorer screenshot). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened to WP:ASR? - Sikon (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Without the logo, the page part is GNU FDL (unless a non-free image is included, which must not happen), but with the logo, it is less easy to extract the part to reuse as a different screenshot if such a need arises. --AVRS (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Scollable references

This edit puts the references in a scrollable 200px high window, but for at least Firefox on a Mac in classic skin introduces a horizontal scroll bar (in addition to the intended vertical scroll bar). Given that the browser window is already vertically scrollable I'm not sure I see the advantage of another vertically scrollable component. Anyone have a good reason this should be here? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the scollbars. They should not be there; it looks bad and makes it difficult to get at the references. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Third most used browser?

What's with these edits trying to claim that Firefox is the third most used browser by counting IE 6 and IE 7 as two completely different browsers? -- Schapel (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a claim, but a fact that when (and only when) counting IE versions it is number three. One of the advantages is that it shows how it compares to old IE versions in market share. Digita (talk)

If you'd like to make that comparison then please show percentages, don't just say that Firefox is in third. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The point I wanted to make initially was that Firefox had surpassed IE5 (it may soon pass IE6 as well), at which point it made sense preface it with a comparison based on major (not minor versions). I don't care about saying its third, the point was to compare it to the major IE versions. That said, adding the percentages is excellent idea. Digita (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand the point. Why compare all versions of one browser against separate versions of another browser? I understand that it is a fact. What's the point of stating that fact? -- Schapel (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After reading what's been added to the article, it looks like an unreadble mess. How about the simple statements "Firefox is the second most used browser after Internet Explorer. Comparing major versions of browsers, Firefox 2 is the third most used browser version after Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7?" That is at least readable, but I still don't understand what the point is. Why would a reader care about this fact? Let's leave out all the stuff about when which version of what browser surpassed what other version of whichever whatever version browser back five years ago. -- Schapel (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In the redone section with RTD and your input, it is more clear major versions are being compared (e.g. IE7 to FF2). There are multiple points really, such as to show that the latest releases quickly become dominant, that Firefox versions have overtaken IE versions, and to giver perspective on the current market share war. For instance, given the market share shift it seems former IE6 users are going to Firefox and Safari when they migrate. Finally, I did not mean question your understanding of facts;I was just trying to be emphatic. Digita (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am flexible on the wording but I stand by the utility of version to version comparison. (Had a E.C., this is for the second Schapel note) Digita (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. You're attempting to convince the reader that IE6 users are going to Firefox or Safari? First, you shouldn't try to make such a point unless a reliable source has already done so. Second, I don't see how the data you provide advances that position. Who cares if Firefox versions have overtaken IE versions? If you want to make a point, find a reliable source that makes the point and cite it while clearly stating the point. Don't overload the reader with a mass of data in unreadable form and expect them to infer the conclusion you're trying to get them to reach. -- Schapel (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You asked me for some reasons, those were some ideas for our discussion here not the article. What the reader draws from the information is up to them, and I am not trying to make a more complicated point. In terms of the article, I think there should be a comparison of the version and the exact wording is not critical (nothing more nothing less). Surely you must see some value in comparison. Digita (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The only value I can see in comparing the usage of different versions of different browsers is in determining which browser versions a web developer should test with. If IE 6 and IE 7 are used more than Firefox 2, perhaps it would be wise to test in IE 6 and IE 7 first. Why would it matter to anyone but web developers, who I'm sure already know which versions of which browsers are most used? -- Schapel (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, if anything, it is Firefox 2 that is a minor version of Firefox 1.5, and not Firefox 1.5 of 1.0. Also, 1.0 is Gecko 1.7, 1.5 is 1.8, and 2.0 is 1.8.1. --AVRS (talk) 10:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing FF's market share to IE5 strikes me as a fairly silly comparison. Microsoft has basically forced anyone running IE5 to upgrade to IE6 and will, no doubt, eventually force anyone running IE6 to upgrade to IE7. Once a new version is out, comparisons of "market share" of older versions really have no particular meaning, particularly when the users of the old version are more or less compelled to upgrade to the new version. Usage of the old version declines while usage of the new version increases. Any current version of another browser will eventually have more market share than an old enough version of IE (just out - usage of Lynx surpasses usage of IE4!). I think I agree with Schapel here - unless there's something published somewhere that makes a big point of this, why should we? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That argument doesn't apply to the comparison between FF2 and IE7, as those would both be current. In addition, I disagree about the historical comparison, so long as they relevant then. For instance, Firefox overtaking IE5 was significant at the time, because they had the same market share. Where I would agree is if we said FF2 overtook, say the market share of IE3 in 1 day, because its not significant now OR in the past. All that said, I don't really care about the exact nature of this version comparison, so as long there is one. Digita (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was significant at the time, then you should have no trouble finding a reliable source making that observation. Summarize that observation in the article, and cite that source as verification. It's as simple as that. Don't put your own observation in Wikipedia. WP is not for original material, just for summarizing what secondary sources say. -- Schapel (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add, the resistance here against comparing versions mystifies me. Most modern trackers track major versions independently, and most of the community focus I see is on major versions (such as FF2, FF3, etc.) not on some generic concept! So, once again, I stand by having some sort of version comparison in the article regardless of its me, Schapel, or whoever writing it. Digita (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's your own personal analysis of the situation. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original material. Publish your analysis elsewhere. -- Schapel (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The version market share is not original research, its a single referenced fact in the context of the article. It would only be research, if there was an additional statement about what it meant. Digita (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand the simple statement "Firefox 2 is the third most used browser version after Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7" is not original research. That's why I suggested that wording. But it is not important. It's a trivial piece of information. Go ahead and add that statement to the daughter article. It's too detailed and unimportant for the main article. If you want to add it to the main article, I would ask for a reliable source that includes someone pointing out that fact in an English sentence, not just a reference to a computer-generated report, and mentioning that it has some significance. If no human being bothers to point out the fact, how can it be important? -- Schapel (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think part of our problem is that I re-wrote the version comparison with RTDs input "If you'd like to make that comparison then please show percentages, don't just say that Firefox is in third. ". So I added that data, but you seem to dislike this second version greatly. I will make a third version that will perhaps address some of your concerns. Digita (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out an example of version comparison, here is a quote from an Ars Technica article that uses both combined version and separate version comparison. [1] With Statments such as "Curiously, the release of Internet Explorer 7 last summer didn't provide any additional momentum for Microsoft. IE7's browser share soared from 3.18 percent in October 2006 to 25.01 percent last month, but all of that gain came at the expense of older versions of the browser, especially IE6, which dipped from 77.17 percent to 54.04 percent, according to Net Applications.". Here is another article titled Internet Explorer 7 vs. Firefox 2 at CNET [2].

Neither of the sources you gives compares the usage share of one version of one browser and the usage share of another version of another browser. One compares the usage share of different versions of the same browser, and the other compares features of the two browsers, not usage share. The problem with the version re-written with percentages is that you not only added percentages, but also expanded the statement to an entire paragraph which was unreadable. If you want to compare usage share of different versions of different browsers in the main article, I again ask you to cite a reliable source that makes exactly that same comparison (not a completely different comparison) and why that comparison is important. -- Schapel (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are just nitpicking at this point, but I think we have reached a compromise regardless. The only additional change, is to leave just a comparison of market share in the main article and the rest can be in the daughter article as you suggest. Digita (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not nitpicking. No reliable source makes the comparison you are trying to make because it is a trivial piece of information with no importance. It has no place in the main article. I already added a sentence to the daughter article with percentages. -- Schapel (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The source is already used in the article to describe market share. Digita (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, comparing versions is already done in the article, for instance in the next section it says "After the release of Firefox 2 and Internet Explorer 7 in 2006, PC World reviewed both and declared that Firefox was the better browser"; so to say it has no importance is contradictory to whats already in the article. Digita (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is another thought Sc., perhaps this information about version market share would be better in a table, given our debate the wording?Digita (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, we have both wasted too much time discussing this. Just leave something about the version comparison in both articles. The daughter article is ok with me, if its ok with you. Digita (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please show an actual human being pointing out that comparison as having some importance and meaning. Otherwise, it does not warrant inclusion in the main article. It's a piece of trivia scraped off a computer-generated report. For all I can tell, those reports are not even intended for comparing the share of different versions of different browsers, but just a way of reporting the usage of different versions so that the usage of different versions of the same browser can be compared (e.g. comparing the use of IE 6 and IE 7, or comparing Firefox 1 and Firefox 2). It's not a notable fact and you are giving it undue weight by including it in the main article. -- Schapel (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article already compares versions, and there are numerous reviews that compare Firefox 2 and IE7. Just because you have become obsessed with the fact that its possible to compare FF1 to FF2 when you list the market share FF2, IE7, IE6, Safari 3, and FF1 doesn't mean thats the reason for including it. Digita (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just in case, here is yet another article E6 vs. IE7 vs. Firefox 2.0 vs. Firefox 1.5 vs. Safari 3.0 vs. Opera 9 - In browser market share by Marius Oiaga, Technology News Editor. It contains such gems as "Firefox 2.0 has been also expanding its share constantly in spite of IE7. From just 0.69% in October 2006, Firefox 2.0 is now accounting for 11.07% of the market. Mozilla has even sacrificed version 1.5 of its open source browser for Firefox 2.0. "

Except for the sentence in which you contradicted yourself, this is a far, far higher quality edit than the others I have seen contributed by you recently. I want to say that I acknowledge and appreciate your effort. Thank you. -- Schapel (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am glad we worked this out also. Thanks and good luck. Digita (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Digita, I don't know if you're trying to play stupid or what, but you still do not have any reference that compares the usage share of a version of one browser and a version of another browser, as you seem to claim. In the Softpedia reference you provide, each paragraph compares the usage share of different versions of the same browser. -- Schapel (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just becuase two versions of different browsers are only compared in the same article, not the same paragraph, does not validate your argument (even if it were reason to revert in the first place) Nevertheless, here is yet another source with a comparison of market share of a version of one browser, to a version of another browser, [3]. Such quotes as During the week of July 2 to 8, 2007, the average visit share in a European country is in fact 23.1% for Firefox 2 and 22.6% for Internet Explorer 7 (of the totality of visits, all browsers taken together). Digita (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will add, the article IE6 vs. IE7 vs. Firefox 2.0 vs. Firefox 1.5 vs. Safari 3.0 vs. Opera 9 - In browser market share deathmatch is also referenced there too. Digita (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Might want to check out IE7 and Firefox 2.0 Are Slaughtering Internet Explorer 6 also.[4] Digita (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we're finally getting somewhere. Thank for you finally providing sources that actually compare usage share of versions of different browsers. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now, can you put all these details in the daughter article and summarize the most important points in the main article? That's what the daughter article is for. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is already covered in the daughter article. Digita (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hideous screenshot

Why are we using a Kubuntu screenshot for firefox? It's made for GTK, which KDE is not. :D\=< (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I wanted it to be in OS X so it would look nicest, but somehow that wasn't free enough. The Kubuntu one replaced an older Ubuntu one, which looks pretty much identical except it doesn't have the ugly, distracting orange. Althepal (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is some editors' childish obsessions with appearance over following the rules. Apparently wikipedia is now some kind of magazine that needs a style editor.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Preview release

There is Firefox 3.0 beta 4 pre, can we reedit "preview release"? --Ilhanli (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just a nightly build, not a preview release. It's a pre-preview release. Althepal (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now the beta 4 will be released very shortly. Althepal (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 Beta 3 includes Colour Management

For those of us who work with digital images the news that Firefox 3 Beta 3 now includes colour management may be interesting. There's some info about it here: http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/08/color-management-support-added-to-firefox-3/

To enable it - it's disabled by default at this Beta stage - type (without the quotes) 'about:config' in the address bar and set 'gfx.color_management.enabled' to 'true' and restart Firefox.

There's a test page here: http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter in which the larger image seems OK in Firefox with Colour Management enabled, but Internet Explorer 7 just shows the differing quadrants. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)