On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Mark Finkle <[email protected]> wrote:
> > * Firefox finds a new service (e.g., by installing an add-on)? Does it turn > > on by default? > > The default should probably be "Sync Everything", which probably means we > sync new datatypes as we add them for users who don't change the default. If > a user changes her elections (i.e., opts out of some datatypes), new > datatypes are not synced unless the user turns them on. > I was not originally, but I think I am falling into Richard's camp a bit. > Defaulting to "Sync Everything" seems absurd if you consider some other > company doing it. Perhaps with your banking data, to a computer in an > Internet cafe. > The big money question is "What are the defaults?" If Sync is like many other products, a large percentage of the users won't touch the defaults [1,2]. The default value will be the only value. WRT new datatypes, if we don't turn them on by default, I anticipate hardly anyone will use them. By saying "Sync Everything", I'm not proposing actual copy, but I'm proposing the default is to sync all of your "Fx experience" (that we can). I watched a user in the Portland user tests that used Chrome sync because "all his stuff" is "just there". That's how I interpret our user story: "As a user, I want to be able to pick up any new device and replicate my core Firefox experience so I don't have repeat a bunch of work I've already done on another device." > On Aug 26, 2013, at 1:16 PM, Richard Newman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The choice is whether you try to sync all of the same groups of buckets to > > every device, given that it's impossible to do so, and how you explain that > > gulf of inconsistency to the user. > > > > What I'm hearing from product and UX is that at least for the current > browser-data-centric datatypes, global (i.e., one setting for all your > devices) selections are sufficient or desired. I think this is fine, and > doesn't prevent use from tracking per-device capabilities to enable more > nuanced behavior in the future. > Sadly, this will lead to a mismash of UI in the future. Personally, I find it > odd that we are rejoicing in the mediocrity of the Sync 1.1 UI. After we nail the default behavior, the next question is how much customization we provide. Customization is complexity and the big money question is expected value vs cost. If hardly anyone changes the defaults, the expected value is small. What data to we have? How many users change the defaults in the existing sync system? How many users complain about or praise the existing customization controls (caveat: noisy or stalwart users are not necessarily representative users)? Another important data point is Chrome sync, which defaults to syncing all the browser data and disabling a datatype affects all connected devices. I suspect many of their UI decisions are data driven, and it would be foolish to completely ignore their choices. In the absence of compelling data, the prudent approach is to provide as little customization as is reasonable, and be prepared to iterate quickly. -chris [1] Many things I could quote here, but here's one: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/01/the-power-of-defaults.html [2] The flip side (disclosure, my wife wrote this): http://monica-at-mozilla.blogspot.com/2013/02/writing-for-98.html
_______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
