

Checkboxes that kill your product - coppolaemilio
http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill/

======
gear54rus
Yeah because those who are aware how those things work can totally waste their
time downloading addons to do basic things.

Common sense: you don't know what this control is for? DON'T touch it. Or
touch it and face the consequences (learning's got to start somewhere,
right?).

This article seems to encourage apple's way of thinking ('simple', 'just
works') and this is one of the main reasons for me (and many other people, I
reckon) to ignore all their products completely. You want to go this way?
fine. Don't expect anyone technically-literate to use your thingie though
(because it becomes harder to use for debugging and all those things than,
say, Chrome). Also:

> _Is it really worth having a preference panel that benefits fewer than 2% of
> users overall?_

and then

> _Even 1% of a few hundred million isn’t a trivial number of people._

Decide on it already :)

~~~
mattzito
I think there's a bit of nuance here - the point isn't entirely that you
shouldn't have these options, it's more that it's extremely user unfriendly to
have options in a primary preferences panel or menu that can be selected and
will completely break the user experience, _without any clear path to
resolution_.

I would say that since the code already exists to do these things, maybe the
right way to deal with this is to move dangerous preferences to a sub-menu
with warning signs, and then some sort of icon or notification to warn you
that you've got a setting enabled that will break big swaths of the Internet.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _will completely break the user experience, without any clear path to
> resolution._ //

Checkboxes have a clear path to resolution, you [un]check the box to return it
to it's original state.

To prevent the user forgetting then perhaps configuration changes could be
added to the history (or a different "undo-history") so the user can easily
back-track.

~~~
mattzito
I agree in theory, but remember that many of these options have unintended
consequences that may not be clear. So, for example, the navigation bar
disappears - how do you get it back? Where did it go?

Or disabling image loading, maybe it works fine on the first few sites you
visit, but then you go to the google homepage and it stops working - what do
you do then? What broke that functionality? What if you're not the person who
[un]checked the box?

The perspective of the post is about how regular users might easily find
themselves in a situation where "basic" settings broke core functionality in
the browser unintentionally, without guidance on how to fix it.

I do like the "config change history" idea, though that might be Yet Another
Panel(tm) that's too complicated for the regular user. But maybe there's a
"Big Red Button" that firefox could have that sets things back to a "standard"
or "known good" config. These types of things are great for novice users
because you can tell someone, "Look, if you get into trouble, don't know
what's going on, hit the big red button".

I've used stuff like this for certain family members who are not great with
cmoputers - rather than trying to teach them all of the different knobs to
twiddle, spend a lot of time teaching them how to get to a known good state
("Close all fo the windows and restart", etc.).

------
realusername
I really don't understand how it is a problem, these options are surely useful
for a portion of the userbase otherwise they would not be displayed. I'm
pretty sure people browsing with a 33k modem connection would enjoy disabling
images so everything could be faster and you can find examples for any item of
this list.

All these options are under the configuration menu anyway so no inexperienced
user are not going to go in this menu anyway... I don't really see the point
this article is trying to make.

~~~
_pmf_
> I really don't understand how it is a problem,

It's a problem if you're an armchair "usability engineer" who needs to write a
blog post.

~~~
Lewton
"Previously head of Firefox ux & Product Design Strategy at Mozilla "

I'm guessing the word previously wasn't there back when the post was written.

------
oneeyedpigeon
"That’s right, you can’t even see the text box you’re supposed to type your
search into. Congratulations, we just broke the Internet."

No, _Google_ broke the Internet. If they've introduced a dependency between
text boxes and images (?!), that's down to them. Web interface should work via
progressive enhancement such that it's perfectly possible to browse and use a
site without javascript, css, or even images.

~~~
VBprogrammer
If you want a website which works perfectly without Javascript, CSS or images
feel free to pay for it. The rest of us will continue ignoring that tiny
minority of people in the interest of getting real work done.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
It‘s not just the “tiny minority” (whatever that means — I‘m guessing neither
of us have actual figures) of people with any of those technologies disabled
that benefit from a progressive approach. I‘m not 100% idealistic on this one,
but at least apportion the blame where it‘s due.

~~~
emodendroket
Four years ago it was around 1% of users worldwide; I doubt that number has
gone up: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-
statistic...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9478737/browser-statistics-
on-javascript-disabled)

------
a3176082
Google is forcing its browser, Apple has its own, and Microsoft has one as
well. I don't see "regular users" using Firefox unless it is recommended to
them by the "2%". So don't annoy the 2%.

------
Lockyy
My problem with the argument of moving everything into an addon is that I
don't care for installing 13 addons with no permissions list (in firefox at
least) and no way to keep them away from my browsing activity.

------
IkmoIkmo
Can anyone explain to me the problem? They basically created an OPTION, i.e.,
optional, that breaks when people who don't get it use it.

Now I've got plenty of tech illiterate friends, and they've asked me many
questions over the years, but never did it have anything to do with browser
settings not loading pictures or javascript.

In fact, it's the one thing people tend not to mess with. They'll do tons of
weird software, they'll even do regedits from a misinformed guide, but
touching browser settings? I don't know about you, but none of my friends ever
did.

So what's the problem here? Don't see one. What's the solution if there was a
problem? Create a 'dev-mode' button, give the user a warning they shouldn't
use it unless they're software developers, and put your tricky settings behind
that wall.

The solution doesn't seem to me to require people to install add-ons for what
is basic functionality to a decent amount of people, especially not in an
addon store with lots of third-party crap that might work now, but doesn't
work in combo with another add-on, or stops working after the browser updates
and the add-on dev moved on to other things.

~~~
Someone1234
> What's the solution if there was a problem? Create a 'dev-mode' button, give
> the user a warning they shouldn't use it unless they're software developers,
> and put your tricky settings behind that wall.

That's my preferred solution. On both Android (tap the build version 7 times)
and Chrome (chrome://flags) it works extremely well, allowing you access to
settings you wouldn't dream of giving the general public.

They could also move some of this from the general settings panel into the
Developer Bar. Chrome allows you to disable JavaScript for your current page
from there (although it still has the global setting too).

I'm all for Firefox reducing the complexity/gotchas within the general
public's settings panel. Just allow advanced users to continue to access them
via some means and everyone is happy. It wouldn't be a big deal to e.g. have
to type in About:DeveloperSettings.

------
stiaje
So how many of these things have been changed since the article was published
1,5 years ago?

After looking through my settings, more or less all of them, with the
exception of cache management, it seems.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Yes. And there was - on HN - much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

------
kibwen
This is from 2013. Previous comments on this article:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5394494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5394494)

~~~
gear54rus
Perfect comment about FF becoming the next IE. Same thought crossed my mind as
well.

------
drivingmenuts
In the case of Hipmunk and other javascript-required sites, I would say that's
their problem, not the browser. Obviously, Hipmunk made a choice, and that's
well within their rights, to not deal with browsers that don't have JS
enabled. _I 've_ done the same thing.

But never once did I, or would I, blame the user.

These are just the decisions we have to make to get things done some days.

------
tome
Firefox can even break itself. If you deselect "View -> Toolbars -> Menu Bar"
with the menu bar then the menu bar disappears. How do you get it back? You
can't repeat the same procedure because the menu bar is not there any more!

It turns out you can right-click on an empty space on the tab bar to reenable
the menu bar, but this is far from obvious.

~~~
rockdoe
Press Alt, which is the standard menu shortcut in Windows.

------
tokenrove
I find it amusing that one of his examples is disabling SSL 3.0.

------
ithinkso
Personally I _hate_ when they hide or turn off entirely every possible option.
They are there for a reason if someone wants to use them - if not - simply
don't use them. After such options have disappeared peoples that were using it
are pissed and those who have not - don't even notice.

------
krisdol
Wait, what he's saying is that it's not obvious that View -> Toolbars ->
Navigation Toolbar toggles the visibility of the navigation toolbar? I still
have nothing but pure distaste for the current "I can look like Chrome, too!"
UI decision of Firefox, and I'm just going to get more peeved as they kill off
more features for pure stylistic sake.

So in the future I'll have to browse through another 6 dozen 'classic options'
add-ons until I find one that is maintained, compatible, does what it claims,
and hopefully doesn't break my privacy?

Sounds great that the company that puts "Your Privacy First" finds that
untrusted third parties are the best providers of core functionality that
should have been in the browser to begin with.

------
hyperpape
The thing that so many of the usability challenged folks in this thread are
missing is that this is an argument about checkboxes in the standard
application preferences.

For complicated products like Firefox, there can be a range of options based
on how in your face they are:

    
    
      1. wizard that demands a decision when you first install the app (last resort)
      2. main pane of preferences (common decisions)
      3. about:config (obscure use-cases, dangerous use cases)
      4. only within the dev-tools (common case for a specific group of people)
      5. recompiling (the other last resort)
    

The customization/safety tradeoff is real, but it's not zero-sum.

------
talmand
Seems a nerve was struck with this one over the time since this was originally
posted.

Most of the options he's complaining about are not easily changed in my
current Windows version of Firefox.

Only the certificates (which is a multi-click process to get to) and the cache
management are located as described.

Although, looking around I found an option I never bothered to notice before.
View -> Page Style seems to provide the ability to disable all CSS quite
easily. What purpose does that serve for an everyday user?

------
jensnockert
Except most of those checkboxes don't exist anymore, the encryption tab is
gone, etc. ([http://imgur.com/YX4KyQL](http://imgur.com/YX4KyQL))

------
erlkonig
If Firefox would just add DOCUMENTATION (text and perhaps a URL to more text)
to the options in the about:config page, _many_ aspects of using it would
improve enormously.

------
valuegram
This is related to a question I was just pondering. I'm developing a web
application that relies heavily on JavaScript for a lot of the interactivity.
I was planning on devoting a decent amount of time to implementing JavaScript
disabled functionality as well, but realized for my target market (small to
medium business), that might not be very important, and could just be a big
time waste. Anyone have any experience/insight?

~~~
sdcooke
I find that a useful way to look at this is to compare the time you would
spend on that to the growth you would get by spending time elsewhere.

For example if it takes 1 week to add support for JS disabled clients and they
are 1% of your target market but you could spend a week on a feature that
would likely add 2% growth, it's a pretty easy decision. The exact numbers are
sometimes hard to work out, but the thought process can make the decision
easier.

------
auggierose
Well, how about the option that per default DOES NOT ALLOW FIREFOX TO
AUTOMATICALLY SWITCH BETWEEN ONLINE AND OFFLINE MODE!

Instead you have to explicitly hit Work Offline to get into offline mode.
That's totally bad for a modern application that can work both offline and
online.

------
srcmap
I like Firefox with options - better yet Firefox + noscript.

If your website needs with js, flash and need to load js plugins from 10 other
ad domains to see, that's fine. I don't want to see it anyway.

I love to have choices.

------
pbhjpbhj
The "load images" argument uses images from an alternate domain that is
blocked where I am (porn hosting) ... so I can't see his screenshots arguing
for not allowing images to show ... oh, the irony.

------
unwind
In that rather technical article, I was glad to see that the author thinks
readers need help (in the form of a hover tooltip) that explains the "&"
symbol. It means "and"! Who knew?!

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
It _is_ quite a stylised ampersand - maybe some people won't recognise it? :-)

