Firefox for Web DevelopersAI Controls (formerly 'kill switch') are landing in today's Firefox Nightly, and will land with Firefox 148 later this month.
For the full details, see the Firefox blog https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/ai-controls/
ArneBab@firefoxwebdevs that UI looks like someone really wanted to rub in the face of users "you are missing out on".
- form with long description text
- use "block" as naming instead of a plain "disable" (implies that this is a strong action on my part)
- big warning popup that names all the things again
- showing all the things anyway (but I just said no! Respect that!)
Dial FOMO to 100.
That feels really wrong.
@ArneBab "block" was picked deliberately, as it's removing all entry points to the feature, not just disabling the feature (e.g. disabled buttons are still there, but these are BLOCKED).
It was important to show the features individually so you can control them individually. E.g. translation is something people explicitly wanted to be able to re-enable https://mastodon.social/@firefoxwebdevs/115849251057488746
@firefoxwebdevs so i "re-enable" stuff I want after "blocking"?
re-enable calls for "disable" as the other part.
What that "block" does is "set default to disable" and "disable all" that we all know from the law-compliant cookie-banners.
Or rather: "make AI opt-in".
Suggestion that does not feel manipulative:
Button [disable all] ⇒ disables all AI options.
Added Option: [enable future AI features by default] ← gets disabled alongside the individual options when clicking [disable all].
@ArneBab it doesn't just disable all existing feature, it also auto-disables future AI features, or 'blocks' them from even appearing in the UI.
@firefoxwebdevs that’s what I mean with
[ ] enable future features by default.
and I’m writing my impression as feedback and this suggestion, because my reaction to the new block option was visceral.
Just seeing the workflow of enabling the block evoked the strong feeling that I’m being pulled by the nose into "do you really want to block? Why not enable just this one feature" (as drug dealers do) instead of my choice being respected.
And that does not match my usual feeling towards Firefox.
@ArneBab but it doesn't enable future feature by default.
You're blocking the entry points to these features, so they cannot be enabled.
@firefoxwebdevs enable future feature by default happens by default.
If that gets disabled on clicking [disable all] (or such), that’s the same choice, but without feeling as manipulative.
And "blocking the entry points … so they cannot be enabled" followed by options to enable them individually is part of what feels so wrong.
@ArneBab We're stumbling on the wording here. 'Enabled' to many people means the feature is active. That's why we went with 'available' for features that aren't actively running, but their entry points are available.
@firefoxwebdevs That sounds like you’re very defensive in all the hate you got the past months and made it worse in trying to give people the impression that they can make a strong statement by hitting "block".
But that’s what causes the reaction for me: if I make a strong statement, despite warning, then I mean it.
Asking "but how about this specific one" feels just like "but can a little bit really hurt?"
1/2
@firefoxwebdevs
For wording: [remove all] would match the intention you’re describing (the antonym of provide¹). And added
"default for future features: (available / unavailable)"
But not to be misunderstood:
I like it that you’re giving the option to disable all of them together. It’s just the way of implementation that feels so wrong.
It feels like FF is making a fuss about me stating my preference.
¹ https://www.powerthesaurus.org/provide/antonyms
2/2
@firefoxwebdevs And I’ve really taken up enough of your time with this.
All I wanted to do was to give you user feedback on the UI. I did that now.
I didn’t want to spread aggression (though I got too emotional) or speak against the block option in general.
I know that UI is hard and that making UI choices that touch a heated societal debate is doubly so.
To sum it up: I’m sorry for stress I caused.
/cc @dveditz
Noa@ArneBab @firefoxwebdevs @dveditz agreed with everything save for your apology. From the conversation, you were making your point rather clear & the response you got was evasiveness & gaslighting, so of course you'd get heated.
@vex I’ve been on the side of the maintainer who misjudged something and has gotten heated responses, and from that experience I think that I got too heated.
It’s really hard not to get defensive when there is a lot of heat already.
And FF devs are regularly taking the heat, even though most just try to do good work.
When you know someone receives a lot of aggression already, you shouldn’t add more.
I realized too late that we were effectively ganging up on them.
@firefoxwebdevs @dveditz