One of the UX recommendations was that we have more KB articles. This is especially important around breaking issues. We've seen that listing more of these on the front page has lead to a significant decrease in questions being asked that are already easily answered by an article. With Firefox 11 being released next week, I think we have an opportunity to try to make this happen.
I propose that we form a breaking issues team. This team would quickly create a number of articles that we link in the various topic pages we have on the front page (this is instead of creating just one "latest issues" article). There are a few parts to this:
We need people to continue to report the issues that they are seeing with the release in the forum thread we start about it. This is something that we've been doing.
We need people to research solutions and workarounds (sometimes located in bug reports associated with the issue).
We need people to draft basic KB articles - just a description of the problem and the steps it takes to fix. We can always add other details and related issues later if necessary.
We need people to link these new articles in the Common Issues topic along with whatever other topics make sense.
We need someone to keep track of everything and let people know what work needs to be done.
Now some of you may be saying, "Michael aren't you the one who wanted an article archive and talked so much about having 'too many' articles?" Well yes, I am that person. What's changed since then is that we now have Ibai (the Services support coordinator) and Michelle (the Mobile support coordinator) on the SUMO team. In a way, they each head up a KB team in each of those areas (among lots of other duties). That's how we as a group are able to keep a handle on the increasingly diverse kinds of documentation on SUMO. What I'm proposing that we do is basically the same thing for breaking issues on desktop Firefox. And the article archive will be extremely important to this effort. Many of the things that I'm sure we'll document will be fixed in a matter of days or a couple of weeks. And much will be completely obsolete not long after the following Firefox release. So there will have to be a good deal of following up and archiving things (this was another of the UX recommendations). Having a team of people mostly continually looking at this will make this easier.
Ultimately, if this successful (and given enough people), I think it we could create teams to tackle other documentation challenges. The next ones that come to mind are documenting the new and updated features that are part of each Firefox release and documenting the general "how to use the Internet" stuff (another recommendation). Having teams like this could really help us, as a group, be capable of managing a larger KB. It could also come in handy when Windows 8 comes out as that may end up meaning that almost every single article will need to be updated (and new ones created!).
One of the UX recommendations was that we have more KB articles. This is especially important around breaking issues. We've seen that listing more of these on the front page has lead to a significant decrease in questions being asked that are already easily answered by an article. With Firefox 11 being released next week, I think we have an opportunity to try to make this happen.
'''I propose that we form a breaking issues team.''' This team would quickly create a number of articles that we link in the various topic pages we have on the front page (this is instead of creating just one "latest issues" article). There are a few parts to this:
*We need people to continue to report the issues that they are seeing with the release in the forum thread we start about it. This is something that we've been doing.
*We need people to research solutions and workarounds (sometimes located in bug reports associated with the issue).
*We need people to draft basic KB articles - just a description of the problem and the steps it takes to fix. We can always add other details and related issues later if necessary.
*We need people to link these new articles in the [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/common-issues-after-updating Common Issues topic] along with whatever other topics make sense.
*We need someone to keep track of everything and let people know what work needs to be done.
Now some of you may be saying, "Michael aren't you the one who wanted an article archive and talked so much about having 'too many' articles?" Well yes, I am that person. What's changed since then is that we now have Ibai (the Services support coordinator) and Michelle (the Mobile support coordinator) on the SUMO team. In a way, they each head up a KB team in each of those areas (among lots of other duties). That's how we as a group are able to keep a handle on the increasingly diverse kinds of documentation on SUMO. What I'm proposing that we do is basically the same thing for breaking issues on desktop Firefox. And the article archive will be extremely important to this effort. Many of the things that I'm sure we'll document will be fixed in a matter of days or a couple of weeks. And much will be completely obsolete not long after the following Firefox release. So there will have to be a good deal of following up and archiving things (this was another of the UX recommendations). Having a team of people mostly continually looking at this will make this easier.
Ultimately, if this successful (and given enough people), I think it we could create teams to tackle other documentation challenges. The next ones that come to mind are documenting the new and updated features that are part of each Firefox release and documenting the general "how to use the Internet" stuff (another recommendation). Having teams like this could really help us, as a group, be capable of managing a larger KB. It could also come in handy when Windows 8 comes out as that may end up meaning that almost every single article will need to be updated (and new ones created!).
I've been thinking of it as [http://people.mozilla.org/~mverdi/screenshots/docuemntallthethings-20120302-155943.jpg DOCUMENT ALL THE THINGS!]
What do you think?
One of the UX recommendations was that we have more KB articles. This is especially important around breaking issues. <snip>
We need people to draft basic KB articles - just a description of the problem and the steps it takes to fix. We can always add other details and related issues later if necessary.
We need people to link these new articles in the Common Issues topic along with whatever other topics make sense.
We need someone to keep track of everything and let people know what work needs to be done.
<snip>
What do you think?
What was the reason the UX team gave for wanting more KB articles?
It's an easier and more simple process to edit existing KB articles to add or remove issues, compared to drafting new articles and then archiving them when the issue gets fixed. Why not continue to include breaking issues in the latest Firefox issues article and add links to the new sections to the Common issues after updating topic?
For breaking issues that don't have a KB article or article section, we could link to a support forum post that describes the issue and contains a solution. John99 and I mentioned these "forum articles" here, in the SUMO Information Architecture Project – Phase 1" thread last month:
''Verdi [[#post-45671|said]]''
<blockquote>
One of the UX recommendations was that we have more KB articles. This is especially important around breaking issues. <snip>
*We need people to draft basic KB articles - just a description of the problem and the steps it takes to fix. We can always add other details and related issues later if necessary.
*We need people to link these new articles in the [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/common-issues-after-updating Common Issues topic] along with whatever other topics make sense.
*We need someone to keep track of everything and let people know what work needs to be done.
<snip>
What do you think?
</blockquote>
What was the reason the UX team gave for wanting more KB articles?
It's an easier and more simple process to edit existing KB articles to add or remove issues, compared to drafting new articles and then archiving them when the issue gets fixed. Why not continue to include breaking issues in the [[latest Firefox issues]] article and add links to the new sections to the [[Common issues after updating]] topic?
For example, this Firefox 10 issue (which [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/922318 came up today] in the support forum) could be added to the list of links in the [[Common issues after updating]] topic:
*[[Latest Firefox issues #w_pressing-enter-in-the-address-bar-doesnt-work|Pressing enter in the address bar doesn't work]] '''EDIT:''' This issue is actually covered in the currently archived [[Pressing Enter does not work in the Location bar]] so this isn't really new in Firefox 10. I brought this up in the KB article thread on Firefox 10 issues, here: [/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues/discuss/2310#post-5158]
For breaking issues that don't have a KB article or article section, we could link to a support forum post that describes the issue and contains a solution. John99 and I mentioned these "forum articles" here, in the SUMO Information Architecture Project – Phase 1" thread last month:
*https://support.mozilla.org/forums/contributors/708161
What was the reason the UX team gave for wanting more KB articles?
It's an easier and more simple process to edit existing KB articles to add or remove issues, compared to drafting new articles and then archiving them when the issue gets fixed. Why not continue to include breaking issues in the latest Firefox issues article and add links to the new sections to the Common issues after updating topic?
I'm not the UX person but I suspect that it has to be with findability of this content. By increasing the amount of content per article you are making articles more daunting that they already are.
Results on help centers increase dramatically when you offer short and sweet answers. The trade off, as you mention, is that they require some extra work. But with trending issues it could be a good opportunity to create this type of articles where the curation is not important (i.e. everything has room for an article) and once the issues are not trending anymore we can decide if we are moving elsewhere or kill them completely.
Again, this is my take and not necessarily accurate to why the UX expert recommended it.
''AliceWyman [[#post-45672|said]]''
<blockquote>
What was the reason the UX team gave for wanting more KB articles?
It's an easier and more simple process to edit existing KB articles to add or remove issues, compared to drafting new articles and then archiving them when the issue gets fixed. Why not continue to include breaking issues in the [[latest Firefox issues]] article and add links to the new sections to the [[Common issues after updating]] topic?
</blockquote>
I'm not the UX person but I suspect that it has to be with findability of this content. By increasing the amount of content per article you are making articles more daunting that they already are.
Results on help centers increase dramatically when you offer short and sweet answers. The trade off, as you mention, is that they require some extra work. But with trending issues it could be a good opportunity to create this type of articles where the curation is not important (i.e. everything has room for an article) and once the issues are not trending anymore we can decide if we are moving elsewhere or kill them completely.
Again, this is my take and not necessarily accurate to why the UX expert recommended it.
Ibai, Thanks. That makes sense, if you want users to find out about breaking issues via KB search or browsing the KB, when that's available, assuming shorter articles with a focused title are easier to find (and are more helpful?) than sections of longer articles with a general or nondescript title. I thought that the support.mozilla.org Firefox home page was going to be the primary way people would find these issues, since they would be linked in the Common issues after updating topic.
I'm fine with expanding the number of KB articles if Michael is, as long as we avoid duplication and there's "room" for these new articles without bumping older articles into the archive. It would be great if the process for creating a new article searched for duplicates within existing and archived articles, like bugzilla does when you file a bug! My other concern is that we end up with a hodge-podge of numerous short, narrowly-focused "dead-end" articles (e.g., Mac only-Fx11 only) that compete with other KB articles on similar topics.
We should have a tight control on the Breaking issues stuff with a short fuse, like Michael said, in addition to the Need changes list. Maybe we could use article names like "Breaking issue -<something>" so that they'd be easy to find.
Ibai, Thanks. That makes sense, if you want users to find out about breaking issues via KB search or browsing the KB, when that's available, assuming shorter articles with a focused title are easier to find (and are more helpful?) than sections of longer articles with a general or nondescript title. I thought that the support.mozilla.org Firefox home page was going to be the primary way people would find these issues, since they would be linked in the [[Common issues after updating]] topic.
I'm fine with expanding the number of KB articles if Michael is, as long as we avoid duplication and there's "room" for these new articles without bumping older articles into the archive. It would be great if the process for creating a new article searched for duplicates within existing and archived articles, like bugzilla does when you file a bug! My other concern is that we end up with a hodge-podge of numerous short, narrowly-focused "dead-end" articles (e.g., Mac only-Fx11 only) that compete with other KB articles on similar topics.
We should have a tight control on the Breaking issues stuff with a short fuse, like Michael said, in addition to the [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/contributors/need-changes Need changes] list. Maybe we could use article names like "Breaking issue -<something>" so that they'd be easy to find.
Something else I have noticed is that some breaking issues are linked to from questions but they link to a section of the firefox latest issueslatest firefox issues that then becomes obsolete, the section is deleted and the link defaults to the root article. Maybe we need a better method of managing that and possibly Alice's suggestion "Latest issue -<something>" would work.
However if that meant new articles for each latest issue we hit the problem of delays.
Instead of just deleting sections could we do something like creating some sort of mega archived article Obsolete Firefox latest issues
Make an introductory section explaining these are all obsolete issues
Add a table of contents
Paste in the sections that are deleted from the current edit
Add a brief note about the solution, eg firefox/addon new release
As other articles are removed from the current version article, paste them into the archive obsolete version.
There may be problems with permissions needed to edit an archived article but the first step could be to edit the current article to mention the solution, moving the section could be dealt with as a lower priority by an admin.
My suggestion may not be workable, and there may be better solutions but the current system is not ideal.
Something else I have noticed is that some breaking issues are linked to from questions but they link to a section of the <s>[[firefox latest issues]]</s> [[latest firefox issues]] that then becomes obsolete, the section is deleted and the link defaults to the root article. Maybe we need a better method of managing that and possibly Alice's suggestion "Latest issue -<something>" would work.
However if that meant new articles for each latest issue we hit the problem of delays.
Instead of just deleting sections could we do something like creating some sort of mega archived article '''''Obsolete''' Firefox latest issues''
#Make an introductory section explaining these are all obsolete issues
#Add a table of contents
#Paste in the sections that are deleted from the current edit
#* Add a brief note about the solution, eg firefox/addon new release
# As other articles are removed from the current version article, paste them into the archive obsolete version.
There may be problems with permissions needed to edit an archived article but the first step could be to edit the current article to mention the solution, moving the section could be dealt with as a lower priority by an admin.
My suggestion may not be workable, and there may be better solutions but the current system is not ideal.
Something else I have noticed is that some breaking issues are linked to from questions but they link to a section of the firefox latest issues that then becomes obsolete, the section is deleted and the link defaults to the root article. Maybe we need a better method of managing that and possibly Alice's suggestion "Latest issue -<something>" would work.
On my "Breaking issue-<something>" suggestion for article titles, I only meant using that as a stop-gap, as an easy way to find these new articles (we may be able to use a "breaking-issue" tag instead, at some point) . The article name can always be changed later, if the issue isn't resolved in the next Firefox version and we decide to keep the article.
As far as sections of Latest Firefox issues being deleted, I think the way it's supposed to work is that sections are marked for a specific OS or Firefox version, so they're hidden for other systems or Firefox versions. I vaguely remember that some sections were edited to remove a workaround and simply suggest updating Firefox, .... maybe when the issues was fixed in a minor version update (i.e., in a chemspill fix), for example, a Firefox 9.0.1 update (do you remember a specific issue?) but that's not the case for other sections involving issues resolved in the next major release.
For example, the Latest Firefox issues section Pressing enter in the address bar doesn't work (added Feb 2, along with the UserAgent fix) is a {for win} issue marked {for =fx10} meaning it's a Firefox 10 only issue that's hidden in Firefox 11 ( a mistake IMHO, since there is an archived article on the same issue so it existed in previous Firefox versions, and I don't see any documentation that the problem is fixed in Firefox 11 or that the AVG addon was added to the add-on blocklist). If you use Firefox 11 and click on a link to the Latest Firefox issues section, Pressing enter in the address bar doesn't work you won't see that section ... but you will if you change the "Article is for" to Firefox 10 or if you link to https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx10 instead (I can't figure out right now how to link to just that section).
Getting back to creating new articles for specific issues, one problem I see is the narrow focus. If we create an article about one specific issue that is {for =fx11} and maybe {for =fx11, Mac} only, it will be empty for all other users. At least with the Latest Firefox issues article, Firefox 10 users will see the Firefox 10 content and, for Firefox 11 users, even though the current article doesn't contain any Firefox 11 issues, it still links to the Firefox 11 release notes.
I think that the Latest Firefox issues article should continue to be updated, at least as a place to easily find the release notes which include known issues that may not be in any KB article. We could also link to individual new "breaking issues" articles from there. We could continue to discuss specific new issues in the Latest Firefox issues article discussion forum, as we do now (I've cross-referenced the "Related article discussion" topic to link to related contributor forum threads, including this one). Having discussions about each specific issue in the individual "breaking issues" articles would make the discussion too fragmented, I think.
And John, about your comment, However if that meant new articles for each latest issue we hit the problem of delays, we always hit that problem, with new articles and with changes to existing articles (I have edits to Latest Firefox issues pending right now). That's why I suggested linking to support forum posts on solutions to emerging issues after updates, in the Common issues after updating topic that appears on the front page, until an article gets approved.
Michael/Ibai: Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
''John99 [[#post-45714|said]]''
<blockquote>
Something else I have noticed is that some breaking issues are linked to from questions but they link to a section of the [[firefox latest issues]] that then becomes obsolete, the section is deleted and the link defaults to the root article. Maybe we need a better method of managing that and possibly Alice's suggestion "Latest issue -<something>" would work.
</blockquote>
On my "Breaking issue-<something>" suggestion for article titles, I only meant using that as a stop-gap, as an easy way to find these new articles (we may be able to use a "breaking-issue" tag instead, at some point) . The article name can always be changed later, if the issue isn't resolved in the next Firefox version and we decide to keep the article.
As far as sections of [[Latest Firefox issues]] being deleted, I think the way it's supposed to work is that sections are marked for a specific OS or Firefox version, so they're hidden for other systems or Firefox versions. I vaguely remember that some sections were edited to remove a workaround and simply suggest updating Firefox, .... maybe when the issues was fixed in a minor version update (i.e., in a chemspill fix), for example, a Firefox 9.0.1 update (do you remember a specific issue?) but that's not the case for other sections involving issues resolved in the next major release.
For example, the Latest Firefox issues section [[Latest Firefox issues #w_pressing-enter-in-the-address-bar-doesnt-work|Pressing enter in the address bar doesn't work]] (added Feb 2, along with the UserAgent fix) is a {for win} issue marked {for =fx10} meaning it's a Firefox 10 only issue that's hidden in Firefox 11 ( a mistake IMHO, since there is an [[Pressing Enter does not work in the Location bar|archived article]] on the same issue so it existed in previous Firefox versions, and I don't see any documentation that the problem is fixed in Firefox 11 or that the AVG addon was added to the [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/ add-on blocklist]). If you use Firefox 11 and click on a link to the Latest Firefox issues section, [[Latest Firefox issues #w_pressing-enter-in-the-address-bar-doesnt-work|Pressing enter in the address bar doesn't work]] you won't see that section ... but you will if you change the "Article is for" to Firefox 10 or if you link to https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx10 instead (I can't figure out right now how to link to just that section).
Getting back to creating new articles for specific issues, one problem I see is the narrow focus. If we create an article about one specific issue that is {for =fx11} and maybe {for =fx11, Mac} only, it will be empty for all other users. At least with the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article, Firefox 10 users will see the Firefox 10 content and, for Firefox 11 users, even though the current article doesn't contain any Firefox 11 issues, it still links to the [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/11.0/releasenotes/ Firefox 11 release notes].
I think that the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article should continue to be updated, at least as a place to easily find the release notes which include known issues that may not be in any KB article. We could also link to individual new "breaking issues" articles from there. We could continue to discuss specific new issues in the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article discussion forum, as we do now (I've cross-referenced the "[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues/discuss/2052 Related article discussion]" topic to link to related contributor forum threads, including this one). Having discussions about each specific issue in the individual "breaking issues" articles would make the discussion too fragmented, I think.
And John, about your comment, ''However if that meant new articles for each latest issue we hit the problem of delays'', we always hit that problem, with new articles and with changes to existing articles (I have edits to [[Latest Firefox issues]] pending right now). That's why I suggested linking to support forum posts on solutions to emerging issues after updates, in the [[Common issues after updating]] topic that appears on the front page, until an article gets approved.
'''Michael/Ibai''': Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
Something else I have noticed is that some breaking issues are linked to from questions but they link to a section of the firefox latest issues that then becomes obsolete, the section is deleted and the link defaults to the root article. Maybe we need a better method of managing that and possibly Alice's suggestion "Latest issue -<something>" would work.
.... suggest updating Firefox, .... maybe when the issues was fixed in a minor version update (i.e., in a chemspill fix), for example, a Firefox 9.0.1 update (do you remember a specific issue?)
....
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx10 instead (I can't figure out right now how to link to just that section).
I could not figure out how to link to sub sections of another os or fx version. I have previously resorted to using links to main article to a specific version, alongside a generic link to the specific subsection. Links are better than using the selector, as users otherwise need to know a couple of mozilla cookies could be created that need deletion.
''John99 [[#post-45714|said]]''
<blockquote>
Something else I have noticed is that some breaking issues are linked to from questions but they link to a section of the [[firefox latest issues]] that then becomes obsolete, the section is deleted and the link defaults to the root article. Maybe we need a better method of managing that and possibly Alice's suggestion "Latest issue -<something>" would work.
</blockquote>
''AliceWyman [[#post-45717|said]]''
<blockquote>
.... suggest updating Firefox, .... maybe when the issues was fixed in a minor version update (i.e., in a chemspill fix), for example, a Firefox 9.0.1 update (do you remember a specific issue?)
<br/>....
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx10 instead (I can't figure out right now how to link to just that section).
</blockquote>
Specific example that came up a few times https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#w_firefox-crashes-when-i-start-it as in [/questions/921305#answer-315162]
I could not figure out how to link to sub sections of another os or fx version. I have previously resorted to using links to main article to a specific version, alongside a generic link to the specific subsection. Links are better than using the selector, as users otherwise need to know a couple of mozilla cookies could be created that need deletion.
Specific example that came up a few times https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#w_firefox-crashes-when-i-start-it as in /questions/921305#answer-315162
I could not figure out how to link to sub sections of another os or fx version. I have previously resorted to using links to main article to a specific version, alongside a generic link to the specific subsection. Links are better than using the selector, as users otherwise need to know a couple of mozilla cookies could be created that need deletion.
There's a "Firefox crashes on startup" section for Firefox 9 that you can see using https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx9 (the selector doesn't offer Firefox 9 any more if you're using Firefox 10 ... only Fx 3.6, Fx10, Fx11, and Fx12) so it wasn't deleted, it's just hidden.
{for =fx4,=fx5,=fx6, =fx7, =fx8}
{warning}Warning: You're using an insecure version of Firefox. To keep your computer and personal information safe, please update to the latest version of Firefox.{/warning}
In addition to keeping your computer and personal information safe, the latest version of Firefox contains fixes for many issues that were a problem in earlier versions. See the release notes for more info.
{/for}
''John99 [[#post-45718|said]]''
<blockquote>
Specific example that came up a few times https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#w_firefox-crashes-when-i-start-it as in [/questions/921305#answer-315162]
I could not figure out how to link to sub sections of another os or fx version. I have previously resorted to using links to main article to a specific version, alongside a generic link to the specific subsection. Links are better than using the selector, as users otherwise need to know a couple of mozilla cookies could be created that need deletion.
</blockquote>
There's a "Firefox crashes on startup" section for Firefox 9 that you can see using https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx9 (the selector doesn't offer Firefox 9 any more if you're using Firefox 10 ... only Fx 3.6, Fx10, Fx11, and Fx12) so it wasn't deleted, it's just hidden.
There used to be a "Firefox crashes when I start it" section for Firefox 8 but that was removed when the article was updated for Firefox 10 and replaced with the following, which you can see by using this link: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues#os=win&browser=fx8
-----
{for =fx4,=fx5,=fx6, =fx7, =fx8}
{warning}'''Warning:''' You're using an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_%28computing%29 insecure] version of Firefox. To keep your computer and personal information safe, please [[Updating Firefox|update to the latest version of Firefox]].{/warning}
In addition to keeping your computer and personal information safe, the latest version of Firefox contains fixes for many issues that were a problem in earlier versions. See the [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/10.0.2/releasenotes/ release notes] for more info.
{/for}
-----
OK thanks Alice, My bad I had made a false assumption: because from fx>=10 I did not see {for =fx9}that it was now invalid, and not yet edited out; rather than just hidden.
OK thanks Alice, My bad <br/>I had made a false assumption: because from fx>=10 I did not see {for =fx9}that it was now invalid, and not yet edited out; rather than just hidden.
Michael/Ibai: Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
Re: "needsdoc" no that I know.
Re: "breaking-issue": Doing this has several implications. Are we going to remove them after a while? Should we use this tag automatically by attaching them to popular threads? (I know that Cww is a fan of digging into unpopular threads that may contain the actual key to the issue). If this is not automatic, what's the process (i.e. what's the difference between a Breaking issue from one that is not)?
I think that there's a lot of potential in this project but we should start with the basics (the content creation based on feedback) and grow from there by polishing the processes.
''AliceWyman [[#post-45717|said]]''
<blockquote>
'''Michael/Ibai''': Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
</blockquote>
Re: "needsdoc" no that I know.
Re: "breaking-issue": Doing this has several implications. Are we going to remove them after a while? Should we use this tag automatically by attaching them to popular threads? (I know that Cww is a fan of digging into unpopular threads that may contain the actual key to the issue). If this is not automatic, what's the process (i.e. what's the difference between a Breaking issue from one that is not)?
I think that there's a lot of potential in this project but we should start with the basics (the content creation based on feedback) and grow from there by polishing the processes.
I'm fine with expanding the number of KB articles if Michael is, as long as we avoid duplication and there's "room" for these new articles without bumping older articles into the archive.
Yes there will be "room." That's specifically what the idea of forming a team is meant to address. This team would hold the mental model of everything that's going on with breaking issues in the way that Michelle and others do for what's happening with mobile documentation. We can certainly unarchive (and update if needed) old articles that address these issues. An auto search for these articles would be great but I can't imagine that we have time for that in the near-term. Also, as we do this more, what articles exist and what don't or are archived becomes part of the team's mental model of the situation.
Maybe we could use article names like "Breaking issue -<something>" so that they'd be easy to find.
On my "Breaking issue-<something>" suggestion for article titles, I only meant using that as a stop-gap, as an easy way to find these new articles (we may be able to use a "breaking-issue" tag instead, at some point) . The article name can always be changed later, if the issue isn't resolved in the next Firefox version and we decide to keep the article.
Michael/Ibai: Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
I don't think we need to add "Breaking Issue" to the titles. I'm not sure that particularly helps users and it will just make them longer (and some will be really long). Also I don't think we want to add a tag yet. This will make all of these issues related to each other and they aren't usually related other than by the fact that they happen in the same version of Firefox.
For now we can use a forum thread to keep track of them.
However if that meant new articles for each latest issue we hit the problem of delays.
This is another argument for a team. Also I think we don't have to treat these as top articles. So, for example, a reviewer could approve their own edit and big changes don't have to be debated before being implemented.
Getting back to creating new articles for specific issues, one problem I see is the narrow focus. If we create an article about one specific issue that is {for =fx11} and maybe {for =fx11, Mac} only, it will be empty for all other users. At least with the Latest Firefox issues article, Firefox 10 users will see the Firefox 10 content and, for Firefox 11 users, even though the current article doesn't contain any Firefox 11 issues, it still links to the Firefox 11 release notes.
I think that the Latest Firefox issues article should continue to be updated, at least as a place to easily find the release notes which include known issues that may not be in any KB article.
Make the article display for all Fx versions. Use {for} to add a note that this only applies to Fireofx 11 and/or only to Mac, etc. and include a link to release notes.
We could continue to discuss specific new issues in the Latest Firefox issues article discussion forum, as we do now (I've cross-referenced the "Related article discussion" topic to link to related contributor forum threads, including this one). Having discussions about each specific issue in the individual "breaking issues" articles would make the discussion too fragmented, I think.
Maybe instead we should discuss them in the contributor forum threat that Cheng usually starts with his collection of issues he's tracking right before the release.
Thanks for all of the ideas and questions. Monster reply section... Go!
''AliceWyman [[#post-45708|said]]''
<blockquote>
I'm fine with expanding the number of KB articles if Michael is, as long as we avoid duplication and there's "room" for these new articles without bumping older articles into the archive.
</blockquote>
Yes there will be "room." That's specifically what the idea of forming a team is meant to address. This team would hold the mental model of everything that's going on with breaking issues in the way that Michelle and others do for what's happening with mobile documentation. We can certainly unarchive (and update if needed) old articles that address these issues. An auto search for these articles would be great but I can't imagine that we have time for that in the near-term. Also, as we do this more, what articles exist and what don't or are archived becomes part of the team's mental model of the situation.
<blockquote>
Maybe we could use article names like "Breaking issue -<something>" so that they'd be easy to find.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
On my "Breaking issue-<something>" suggestion for article titles, I only meant using that as a stop-gap, as an easy way to find these new articles (we may be able to use a "breaking-issue" tag instead, at some point) . The article name can always be changed later, if the issue isn't resolved in the next Firefox version and we decide to keep the article.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
'''Michael/Ibai''': Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
</blockquote>
I don't think we need to add "Breaking Issue" to the titles. I'm not sure that particularly helps users and it will just make them longer (and some will be really long). Also I don't think we want to add a tag yet. This will make all of these issues related to each other and they aren't usually related other than by the fact that they happen in the same version of Firefox.
<br>
For now we can use a forum thread to keep track of them.
''John99 [[#post-45714|said]]''
<blockquote>
However if that meant new articles for each latest issue we hit the problem of delays.
</blockquote>
This is another argument for a team. Also I think we don't have to treat these as top articles. So, for example, a reviewer could approve their own edit and big changes don't have to be debated before being implemented.
''AliceWyman [[#post-45717|said]]''
<blockquote>
Getting back to creating new articles for specific issues, one problem I see is the narrow focus. If we create an article about one specific issue that is {for =fx11} and maybe {for =fx11, Mac} only, it will be empty for all other users. At least with the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article, Firefox 10 users will see the Firefox 10 content and, for Firefox 11 users, even though the current article doesn't contain any Firefox 11 issues, it still links to the [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/11.0/releasenotes/ Firefox 11 release notes].
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I think that the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article should continue to be updated, at least as a place to easily find the release notes which include known issues that may not be in any KB article.
</blockquote>
Make the article display for all Fx versions. Use {for} to add a note that this only applies to Fireofx 11 and/or only to Mac, etc. and include a link to release notes.
<blockquote>
We could continue to discuss specific new issues in the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article discussion forum, as we do now (I've cross-referenced the "[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/latest-firefox-issues/discuss/2052 Related article discussion]" topic to link to related contributor forum threads, including this one). Having discussions about each specific issue in the individual "breaking issues" articles would make the discussion too fragmented, I think.
</blockquote>
Maybe instead we should discuss them in the contributor forum threat that Cheng usually starts with his collection of issues he's tracking right before the release.
Michael/Ibai: Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
Re: "needsdoc" no that I know.
Re: "breaking-issue": Doing this has several implications. Are we going to remove them after a while? Should we use this tag automatically by attaching them to popular threads? (I know that Cww is a fan of digging into unpopular threads that may contain the actual key to the issue). If this is not automatic, what's the process (i.e. what's the difference between a Breaking issue from one that is not)?
I don't think we need to add "Breaking Issue" to the titles. I'm not sure that particularly helps users and it will just make them longer (and some will be really long). Also I don't think we want to add a tag yet. This will make all of these issues related to each other and they aren't usually related other than by the fact that they happen in the same version of Firefox.
For now we can use a forum thread to keep track of them.
"latest firefox" contributor tag -> "Latest Firefox Issues" display tag for users (search facets, for example) -> "Comments-Susan": meta-tag to display and aggregate current-version issues; can be used to populate Hot Topics and Something is not working
I also noticed that the tag list also includes:
"needdoc" contributor tag -> -> "Comments-Susan": for contributors only, to tag new issues that need documentation (if that's how it's used today)
''Ibai [[#post-45735|said]]''
<blockquote>
''AliceWyman [[#post-45717|said]]''
<blockquote>
'''Michael/Ibai''': Should a new "breaking-issue" tag be created for support forum threads? Are we actually using the "needsdoc" tag right now for anything?
</blockquote>
Re: "needsdoc" no that I know.
Re: "breaking-issue": Doing this has several implications. Are we going to remove them after a while? Should we use this tag automatically by attaching them to popular threads? (I know that Cww is a fan of digging into unpopular threads that may contain the actual key to the issue). If this is not automatic, what's the process (i.e. what's the difference between a Breaking issue from one that is not)?
</blockquote>
''Verdi [[#post-45738|said]]''
<blockquote>
I don't think we need to add "Breaking Issue" to the titles. I'm not sure that particularly helps users and it will just make them longer (and some will be really long). Also I don't think we want to add a tag yet. This will make all of these issues related to each other and they aren't usually related other than by the fact that they happen in the same version of Firefox.
<br>
For now we can use a forum thread to keep track of them.
</blockquote>
I didn't realize it when I asked the question but "latest firefox/Latest Firefox issues" is already on the "SUMO Tag List" spreadsheet here, linked from bram's post, [/forums/contributors/708224] ''Comment and add to SUMO’s proposed Tag List'':
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTssbJSHVTndGw0dTJzY0VXVmZkamNYb2RqNVZCOEE
*"latest firefox" contributor tag -> "Latest Firefox Issues" display tag for users (search facets, for example) -> "Comments-Susan": ''meta-tag to display and aggregate current-version issues; can be used to populate Hot Topics and Something is not working''
I also noticed that the tag list also includes:
*"needdoc" contributor tag -> -> "Comments-Susan": ''for contributors only, to tag new issues that need documentation (if that's how it's used today)''
...so I added a comment, ''the current tag is "needsdoc" (not needdoc) as seen here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions?tagged=needsdoc ''
"latest firefox" contributor tag -> "Latest Firefox Issues" display tag for users (search facets, for example) -> "Comments-Susan": meta-tag to display and aggregate current-version issues; can be used to populate Hot Topics and Something is not working
Yes but we don't have things like search facets yet. Also when we have a complete set of tags those breaking issues articles will have more than just the breaking issues tag in common so the related things will be a bit smarter.
''AliceWyman [[#post-45747|said]]''
<blockquote>
I didn't realize it when I asked the question but "latest firefox/Latest Firefox issues" is already on the "SUMO Tag List" spreadsheet here, linked from bram's post, [/forums/contributors/708224] ''Comment and add to SUMO’s proposed Tag List'':
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTssbJSHVTndGw0dTJzY0VXVmZkamNYb2RqNVZCOEE
*"latest firefox" contributor tag -> "Latest Firefox Issues" display tag for users (search facets, for example) -> "Comments-Susan": ''meta-tag to display and aggregate current-version issues; can be used to populate Hot Topics and Something is not working''
</blockquote>
Yes but we don't have things like search facets yet. Also when we have a complete set of tags those breaking issues articles will have more than just the breaking issues tag in common so the related things will be a bit smarter.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I missed this part above. You are right that adding a tag like this to forum posts is great and something we can use right now.
''AliceWyman [[#post-45747|said]]''
<blockquote>
...so I added a comment, ''the current tag is "needsdoc" (not needdoc) as seen here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions?tagged=needsdoc ''
</blockquote>
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this. I missed this part above. You are right that adding a tag like this to forum posts is great and something we can use right now.
We keep the Latest Firefox issues article but think of it as a "topic page" like the others that we've created for the front page. It lists issues and links to articles (like it does right now for the NVIDIA and Tiny MCE issues).
We can use the "needsdoc" tag in the forum to nominate breaking issues for documentation or, if no one has time to write an article, for linking to from the Latest Firefox issues article.
I would love for someone to own this: keep up with what the current issues are, what ones are or need to be documented, ping people as necessary to keep things moving.
Here's what I'm currently thinking:
*We keep the [[Latest Firefox issues]] article but think of it as a "topic page" like the others that we've created for the front page. It lists issues and links to articles (like it does right now for the NVIDIA and Tiny MCE issues).
*We can use the "needsdoc" tag in the forum to nominate breaking issues for documentation or, if no one has time to write an article, for linking to from the Latest Firefox issues article.
*I would love for someone to own this: keep up with what the current issues are, what ones are or need to be documented, ping people as necessary to keep things moving.
