find bar location and UX/Product oversight/review

Mike Connor mconnor at mozilla.com
Mon Jul 29 21:46:20 UTC 2013


On 2013-07-29, at 4:53 PM, Justin Dolske <dolske at mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 7/29/13 8:02 AM, Mike Connor wrote:
> 
>> [...] my concern is about how we make major user-facing
>> changes in a way that is transparent and open to constructive
>> discussion.
> 
> That's a fine issue to discuss. I think there's plenty of room for improvement, and I have further thoughts and concerns on that matter.
> 
> But I think this would have been a much better discussion without the bullshit surrounding that point, taking a developer to task for writing it without UX input (which isn't true) and appealing to a process that is often loosely adhered to. It sure seems like you just don't like the change, and are trying to make a major issue out of a single bug.

I think everything in this paragraph is asserting bad faith and dishonesty, which is honestly pretty upsetting, but I'll try to reply factually and fairly.

To repeat what I said in the original post: I am ambivalent about the change, albeit unhappy with the obvious jank it introduced.  If I wanted to argue about the change, I'd argue about the change.

As for "taking a developer to task", I intentionally did not assert that the developer did that, I said it looked on the surface like that, but after enough digging it appears there were indeed discussions that didn't get reflected in any bug/post/thread.  I was trying to highlight that while the optics were suboptimal, the reality was just a process foul.  This is why I raised questions about how we make sure we're being open about discussions and rationale leading to significant changes.

If this was just a case of a developer overstepping, I wouldn't call them out, especially indirectly, on a public list.  That's not my style, and was not my intention.  If Mike took it that way, I can only apologize and ask forgiveness for any offence caused.

> To put things into perspective: this is a almost-trivial change to move a piece of UI. The bug you linked you was to either fix it, back it out, or live with it. And now it's got a bunch of suggestions for fixing it, and a well-along patch that does so. Success. (And if not, we'll simply back it out and consider it again when/if there is a solution.) That's a fine use of Nightly.

Perspective is subjective, of course.  It's a small code change that has a large visual change, both in where to look for the UI and how invocation shifts content, and I would expect that it's the type of change that we make intentionally with sound reasoning.  If we have that reasoning, I don't think it's asking for a lot to make sure that's there for others to be able to understand the change.

> The stop-energy threads like this create are profoundly disappointing.

I don't know how we can move forward as an open project without having frank and open discussions about the appearance of negative trends in how we work as a project.  Making disruptive changes without providing the rationale in the bug feels like a mistake we should learn from and not repeat as a team, which is why I felt like it was a discussion we should have on this list.

-- Mike


More information about the firefox-dev mailing list