SUMO community discussions

Changes to {for}

  • 15 Replies
  • Last reply by smo
  1. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    This rapid release cycle has some implications for how we use {for} in our articles. Also Firefox will move to a silent update model which will mean users (for the most part) are always running the current version of Firefox. Here are the changes to {for} behavior that will allow us to keep up:

    • Change the current meaning of {for fx4} to mean "For Firefox 4 and up."
    • Add a new modifier syntax, {for =fx5} to mean "For Firefox 5 only." (The current meaning of "{for fx4}".)
    • Special case {for fx35} so that it still means "For Firefox 3.5-3.6 only."

    In the future, if it's necessary, we may introduce a "less than" syntax: {for <fx6} which would mean "For Firefox less than 6" or "Firefox 5 or less." (This would make {for fx6} and {for <fx6} logical opposites.) This has been deemed unnecessary at this time.

    To better support Windows XP and Vista/7, add two new operating systems, 'winxp' and 'win7'. The current 'win' would continue to mean "any windows version" while the new operating systems are hopefully obvious. ('win7' would have to mean Windows Vista or 7.) This doesn't mean we have to immediately update all articles with with separate XP and Win7 instructions. Current articles won't break. We should come up with a list of priority articles that would benefit the most from separate instructions and work them into our regular updates.

    Since fx35 is already a special case, we're going to try to coordinate to remove the remaining fx3 sections. Cheng will scan the DB to find the remaining ones. Soon-ish we'll drop fx3 so we don't have to special case it, as well.

    Additionally but not immediately, we'll add a site-wide warning to old, no-longer supported versions of the browser (for example, when 6 comes out we will start displaying the warning to users on 4).

    Related bugs:

    Let me know if you have questions or suggestions.

    This rapid release cycle has some implications for how we use {for} in our articles. Also Firefox will move to a silent update model which will mean users (for the most part) are always running the current version of Firefox. Here are the changes to {for} behavior that will allow us to keep up: *Change the current meaning of {for fx4} to mean "For Firefox 4 and up." *Add a new modifier syntax, {for =fx5} to mean "For Firefox 5 only." (The current meaning of "{for fx4}".) *Special case {for fx35} so that it still means "For Firefox 3.5-3.6 only." In the future, if it's necessary, we may introduce a "less than" syntax: {for <nowiki><</nowiki>fx6} which would mean "For Firefox less than 6" or "Firefox 5 or less." (This would make {for fx6} and {for <nowiki><</nowiki>fx6} logical opposites.) This has been deemed unnecessary at this time. To better support Windows XP and Vista/7, add two new operating systems, 'winxp' and 'win7'. The current 'win' would continue to mean "any windows version" while the new operating systems are hopefully obvious. ('win7' would have to mean Windows Vista or 7.) '''This doesn't mean we have to immediately update all articles with with separate XP and Win7 instructions. Current articles won't break. We should come up with a list of priority articles that would benefit the most from separate instructions and work them into our regular updates.''' Since fx35 is already a special case, we're going to try to coordinate to remove the remaining fx3 sections. Cheng will scan the DB to find the remaining ones. Soon-ish we'll drop fx3 so we don't have to special case it, as well. Additionally but not immediately, we'll add a site-wide warning to old, no-longer supported versions of the browser (for example, when 6 comes out we will start displaying the warning to users on 4). Related bugs: *Add 'winxp' and 'win7' to showfor [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651226 Bug 651226] *Change showfor semantics and add = operator [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651225 Bug 651225] *Drop fx3 from showfor [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651220 Bug 651220] *Warning for non-supported Firefox versions [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651230 Bug 651230] '''Let me know if you have questions or suggestions.'''
  2. smo
    smo 352 posts
    more options

    @michael - from my own experience as a localizer I think it would make our lives (including yours) much easier, if we could produce complete articles simply like this:

    {for win7} blah blah blah {/for}

    {for winXP} blah blah blah {/for}

    {for Vista} blah blah blah {/for}

    {for mac} blah blah blah {/for}

    {for Linux} blah blah blah {/for}


    the material would still be parametrized as regards fx versions, but there would be much less jungle to fight through. As far as I can tell it's 99% the same and then 1% changes or deletions. And in a lot of cases it's just different screen shots.

    By now I guess we are all experts at cutting and pasting and it would not cost us any significant amount of sweat if text is to be duplicated - applies of course to en as well;) Why not make it simple on ourselves?

    smo

    PS: of course this unravelling of ifthenelseifthenelses can be done with fx versions as well...

    @michael - from my own experience as a localizer I think it would make our lives (including yours) much easier, if we could produce complete articles simply like this: {for win7} blah blah blah {/for} {for winXP} blah blah blah {/for} {for Vista} blah blah blah {/for} {for mac} blah blah blah {/for} {for Linux} blah blah blah {/for} the material would still be parametrized as regards fx versions, but there would be much less jungle to fight through. As far as I can tell it's 99% the same and then 1% changes or deletions. And in a lot of cases it's just different screen shots. By now I guess we are all experts at cutting and pasting and it would not cost us any significant amount of sweat if text is to be duplicated - applies of course to en as well;) Why not make it simple on ourselves? smo PS: of course this unravelling of ifthenelseifthenelses can be done with fx versions as well...
  3. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    Most of the changes not included in templates are from different versions of Firefox which we already decided to split up. If we also split up the instructions by OS we'd end up with eight copies of instructions (4 OSs X 2 Fx versions). Maybe I'm wrong but that feels like it would be a little too much. We'd have very long articles with lots of copies of very similar sets of steps.

    Anyone else have opinions?

    Most of the changes not included in templates are from different versions of Firefox which we [https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/forums/contributors/704970 already decided to split up]. If we also split up the instructions by OS we'd end up with eight copies of instructions (4 OSs X 2 Fx versions). Maybe I'm wrong but that feels like it would be a little too much. We'd have very long articles with lots of copies of very similar sets of steps. Anyone else have opinions?
  4. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    I agree with the WinXP tag creation because some users in the French support forum say they don't follow the instructions of an article because they saw Windows XP somewhere (in parenthesis for instance) and though it was not applicable to them because they are using Windows 7.

    Even it is not fully related, they are still lots of articles with the fx35 tag (and sometimes fx3) where it means "not fx3" ("not fx2" for the fx3 tag) and, as a consequence, the section is not displayed for fx4 although it should. I started to edit some articles in that case, but without any approval, I stopped. Examples : Firefox says it's just updated every time it starts - how to fix, Control whether Firefox automatically fills in forms, Tab preferences and settings

    I agree with the WinXP tag creation because some users in the French support forum say they don't follow the instructions of an article because they saw Windows XP somewhere (in parenthesis for instance) and though it was not applicable to them because they are using Windows 7. Even it is not fully related, they are still lots of articles with the fx35 tag (and sometimes fx3) where it means "not fx3" ("not fx2" for the fx3 tag) and, as a consequence, the section is not displayed for fx4 although it should. I started to edit some articles in that case, but without any approval, I stopped. Examples : [[Firefox has just updated tab shows each time you start Firefox]], [[Form autocomplete]], [[Options window - Tabs panel]]
  5. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    Yes there are lots of fixes and deleting of fx3 tags. Here's a list of all of the English articles still using fx3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651220#c1

    But before we change all of those, I'd like to determine which ones should/will get archived so we can skip updating those.

    Yes there are lots of fixes and deleting of fx3 tags. Here's a list of all of the English articles still using fx3: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651220#c1 But before we change all of those, I'd like to determine which ones should/will get archived so we can skip updating those.
  6. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6154 posts
    more options

    I added a comment in the Article Archive topic at /forums/contributors/704981 with a clickable list of those articles, annotated to show which ones have pending revisions and which have had revisions approved.

    I added a comment in the Article Archive topic at [/forums/contributors/704981] with a clickable list of those articles, annotated to show which ones have pending revisions and which have had revisions approved.
  7. Michael Verdi
    Michael Verdi 1755 posts
    more options

    Since there's still a large number of articles with Fx 3 content to fix even if we ignore the ones to be archived, I asked James to postpone removing support for Fx3. This will allow us (and more importantly, localizers) more time to fix these articles. See this bug for more info https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651220

    So, I think we should just work on fixing these articles as they are updated for changes in Firefox.

    Since there's still a large number of articles with Fx 3 content to fix even if we ignore the ones to be archived, I asked James to postpone removing support for Fx3. This will allow us (and more importantly, localizers) more time to fix these articles. See this bug for more info https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651220 So, I think we should just work on fixing these articles as they are updated for changes in Firefox.

    Modified by Michael Verdi on

  8. Chris Ilias
    Chris Ilias 2447 posts
    more options

    Instead of changing the meaning of {for fx4}, how about {for fx4+}? Or do you want to avoid going through all articles and updating them?

    Instead of changing the meaning of {for fx4}, how about {for fx4+}? Or do you want to avoid going through all articles and updating them?
  9. John99
    John99 3665 posts
    more options
    Instead of changing the meaning of {for fx4}, how about {for fx4+}?

    That seems logical.

    It may also help in future

    • {for fx4} would have an obvious meaning, as would your proposed {for fx4+}
    • {for fxn} eg {for fx8} would also have obvious meaning,
      without the need to keep making special cases
    <blockquote>Instead of changing the meaning of {for fx4}, how about {for fx4+}?</blockquote> That seems logical. It may also help in future * {for fx4} would have an obvious meaning, as would your proposed {for fx4+} *{for fxn} eg {for fx8} would also have obvious meaning, <br/>without the need to keep making special cases
  10. AliceWyman
    AliceWyman 6154 posts
    more options

    I don't think {for fx4} should continue to mean "Firefox 4 only" (as it does now) and use {for fx4+} when you want content to show for Firefox 4 and above, even though it might be more intuitive that way.

    Besides wanting to avoid going through all articles and updating them when Firefox 5 comes out, as we did for Firefox 4, I don't think most people would think to use {for fx4+} or {for fx5+} when they make changes for a new Firefox version, since they probably wouldn't know at the time if the content is going to apply to future versions. It's better to just change the meaning of {for fx4} to show content for Firefox 4 and above. When Firefox 5 comes out and certain content only applies to Firefox 4, you can simply change those tags to {for =fx4} and all articles with {for fx4} tags will still show content for Firefox 5.

    Should we stop using {for not fx35} tags in current articles and templates (see /forums/knowledge-base-articles/705101#post-9579) ... and just use {for fx4}? (I noticed Michael used {for fx4} in his recent revision to this article.) I'm assuming that articles and templates that currently have {for not fx35} tags will continue show that content for all Firefox versions except Firefox 3.5-3.6, right?

    I don't think {for fx4} should continue to mean "Firefox 4 only" (as it does now) and use {for fx4+} when you want content to show for Firefox 4 and above, even though it might be more intuitive that way. Besides wanting to avoid going through all articles and updating them when Firefox 5 comes out, as we did for Firefox 4, I don't think most people would think to use {for fx4+} or {for fx5+} when they make changes for a new Firefox version, since they probably wouldn't know at the time if the content is going to apply to future versions. It's better to just change the meaning of {for fx4} to show content for Firefox 4 and above. When Firefox 5 comes out and certain content only applies to Firefox 4, you can simply change those tags to {for =fx4} and all articles with {for fx4} tags will still show content for Firefox 5. Should we stop using {for not fx35} tags in current articles and templates (see [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/705101#post-9579]) ... and just use {for fx4}? (I noticed Michael used {for fx4} in his recent revision to [[Firefox does not ask to save tabs and windows on exit|this article]].) I'm assuming that articles and templates that currently have {for not fx35} tags will continue show that content for all Firefox versions except Firefox 3.5-3.6, right?

    Modified by AliceWyman on

  11. Chris Ilias
    Chris Ilias 2447 posts
    more options

    Okay, yeah that makes sense.

    Okay, yeah that makes sense.
  12. Kadir Topal
    Kadir Topal 1215 posts
    more options

    Alice, yes, your last statement is true. Besides: It's important to keep in mind that all this for business is really only for the transition period. Once we have silent updates and the new release cycle, almost all Firefox installations will always be at the latest version. We can then clean articles up with every new release, and only have the OS differentiation.

    Alice, yes, your last statement is true. Besides: It's important to keep in mind that all this for business is really only for the transition period. Once we have silent updates and the new release cycle, almost all Firefox installations will always be at the latest version. We can then clean articles up with every new release, and only have the OS differentiation.
  13. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    How to use for should be updated.

    [[How to use for]] should be updated.
  14. smo
    smo 352 posts
    more options

    ... additional to these (transitional) changes, one should think of ways and means to retire anything but the current version. Maybe have a template for {for fx35} cases suggesting the update to the current version. Otherwise we're stuck longer than necessary with this unnecessary fork.

    ... additional to these (transitional) changes, one should think of ways and means to retire anything but the current version. Maybe have a template for {for fx35} cases suggesting the update to the current version. Otherwise we're stuck longer than necessary with this unnecessary fork.
  15. scoobidiver
    scoobidiver 1275 posts
    more options

    smo said

    Maybe have a template for {for fx35} cases suggesting the update to the current version.

    There is a better way to warn users to upgrade with the browser update prompt. But we can warn Firefox 3.6 users to upgrade to Firefox 5, once the current announcement about Flash is no longer needed.
    You must be aware that Firefox 3.6 is maintained with security updates until October 2011 and supported with an additional delay of 6 months (April 2012).
    For information, active daily users are 33M for Firefox 3.6 and 77M for Firefox 4.

    ''smo [[#post-40315|said]]'' <blockquote> Maybe have a template for {for fx35} cases suggesting the update to the current version. </blockquote> There is a better way to warn users to upgrade with the browser update prompt. But we can warn Firefox 3.6 users to upgrade to Firefox 5, once the current announcement about Flash is no longer needed.<br>You must be aware that Firefox 3.6 is maintained with security updates until [/forums/knowledge-base-articles/705214?#post-37860 October 2011] and supported with an additional delay of 6 months (April 2012).<br>For information, active daily users are 33M for Firefox 3.6 and 77M for Firefox 4.
  16. smo
    smo 352 posts
    more options

    @scoobidiver: active daily users are 33M for Firefox 3.6 and 77M for Firefox 4. substantial information, thanks. So ... what can one do to entice 3.6 and earlier customers to update?

    @scoobidiver: ''active daily users are 33M for Firefox 3.6 and 77M for Firefox 4''. substantial information, thanks. So ... what can one do to entice 3.6 and earlier customers to update?