Category talk:Issues (Firefox)
From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
I can't find where proposals for new articles should go, so here it is.
We need an article on CPU use. Maybe there is one that covers it, but I can't find it. People who have high CPU use will search for it under CPU use. It's a pretty common problem. I don't see any way to find information on that from the top down. Sorry, I probably won't write it. I just want to express the need. --AnotherGuest. 1 Nov 06
What a mess this is.
1. The organization and assortment of topics is pretty much random, without any discernable organization. It's pretty daunting to find anything here, and this is pretty much the entry point for someone who's troubleshooting.
2. The alphabetical arrangement is illogical. For example, bookmarks problems are filed under, L, M, and B. Extensions are filed under U (3 places) and P.
3. There's only one subcategory. What the? And why should we have a separate section on subcategories? Shouldn't the whole thing be divided into categories?
4. Sprinkled among miscellaneous issues, I find an article "Issues with Firefox". I thought that's what the whole page was supposed to be. The title, after all, is "Issues (Firefox)".
5. That page, "Issues with Firefox", is actually organized. Something like that should take the place of this page.
6. At one point it was somewhat organized. I don't know what happened, but this seems like several steps backwards.
I notice also that the listing of articles has hardly anything that comes under the subcategory:Page Display. And Page Display has a bunch of stuff that seemingly has nothing to do with page display, and that is not even in the alphabetical listing of articles. If it were up to me, I'd completely dump this default Wikipedia notion of subcategories and alphabetical listing.
And why should we have a separate section on subcategories? Shouldn't the whole thing be divided into categories?
Issues with Firefox is actually organized. Something like that should take the place of this page. At one point it was somewhat organized.
Missing among those frequently encountered issues are memory use, CPU use, firewall, "can't connect", and other common complaints
Page Display has a bunch of stuff that […] is not even in the alphabetical listing of articles
OK, let's start from the top. According to the front page, the subject of this page is "frequently encountered issues". That should be the title, just so we don't forget and morph the significance of the page.
This page should have a consistent heirarchy to make it useable. It should either be an alphabetical list of articles or it should be divided into main headings and possibly subheadings, but it should not be mixed like this. In my opnion, this is the place for structured headings, and not an alphabetical list. If you must have an alphabetical list here, it should be in addition to the structured list, it should be labeled as an alphabetical list of articles, and it must include all articles.
Ditto for the Category:Firefox page. Oh, and forget the Wikipedia "Category:this" and "Subcategory:that" stuff. It's really distracting and annoying.
A good place for an alphabetical list of ALL articles would be on the front page. The Firefox categories could be
(Note that the current system of alphabetizing is fractured -- Bookmarks could be alphabetized under "the" or "sorting" or "lost", etc.
I see the problem now. The page is generated automatically. I didn't look at the page source at first. It does make for an unsatisfactory user experience, in my opinion.
Re: Category:Firefox, I mentioned it only a little, but the same comments pretty much apply to that too. I didn't want to fragment the discussion without good reason.
Do we really need websites as a subcategory? Anything issue-related should be directly in this category.--Np 22:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
How to keep people from reinstalling or reverting?
Probably a majority of users who experience problems think that reinstalling Fx should fix the problems. Many of them probably walk away when it doesn't change anything. Somehow people need to get the idea that setup and data are store in the profile, not with the program files. This information ought to be in big red blinking letters at the top of something. But the top of what? Ideas? Shouldn't we put this notice where EVERYONE will see it -- someplace where they can't miss it?
The other thing is that a sizeable number of them want to revert to a previous version at the first sign of trouble. Bad idea, and we should cite this page: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html . But in which article? --AnotherGuest. 26 Sept. 06