While my last essay garnered mainly positive reviews from "plein d'excellentes critiques/suggestions" [1] to "a better way to market Firefox: Hire Andkon," the newest Mozilla.org design (named Cavendish) failed to incorporate any of the recommendations. Until now, my assumption that Mozilla.org was and still is alienating many users because of its design was merely a hunch. However, this essay, with the use of statistics, will attempt to show that the website is in fact user-unfriendly. Also, like last time, I intend to provide a solution by means of a design, a ~*prettified*~ template, with a feature flash demo and a nifty space-saving contraption.
Anybody involved with Mozilla.org on any level should recognize that some statistics stand contrary to the community perception that "the world is on fire."
| month | % of visits started at enduser pages | average number of visits per day | estimated average number visits started at enduser pages per day |
|---|---|---|---|
| July | 16.86% | 1,679,504 | 283,164 |
| August | 9.57% | 1,972,976 | 188,813 |
| September | 11.82% | 2,461,837 | 290,989 |
| October [up to 21st] | 10.55% | ~2,800,000 | ~295,000 |
What are the enduser pages? These are the pages where we can expect to find those wishing to download Firefox, including IE users who probably have not visited Mozilla.org before (first-time users). The only two pages which apply are mozilla.org and mozilla.org/products/firefox/. The percent of visits started at enduser pages is the sum of the percents of both the mozilla.org and mozilla.org/products/firefox/, as linked to in the webalizer stats. The average number of visitors per day is also taken from the webalizer stats. The estimated average number visits started at enduser pages per day is just a product of the two previous cells.
Asa Dotzler wrote in his blog on October 10 that the "percentage of downloads coming from IE users is currently about 50%." Using the timespan of 32 days after the initial release of Firefox PR, the total number of downloads of Firefox PR was 5 million, or an average of about 156,000 downloads a day. Using the 50% figure, we can conclude that the number of IE users downloading Firefox was around 78,000 per day.
How does this figure square with potential visits of those who are downloading? If we split the estimated visits per day to enduser pages as evenly as the downloads, there's still about 150,000 IE visits (for October) and yet only 78,000 downloads per day.
The big objection is that visits, even to enduser/download pages, are not equal to visitors since a user can visit either enduser page multiple times which would count as multiple visits. That objection, however, rests on possibility while my interpretation rests on probability. For Internet Explorer users, why would users visit multiple times? When I download software, I don't think about it and come back a million times: I either download or I don't. Hence, it makes little sense to believe that IE users' repeated visits skew the stats. For the majority of Firefox (Gecko) users, why would they go to the two enduser pages? Average Joe knows that those two pages have only marketing blurbs since he just downloaded Firefox from those pages. The relatively small number of people going to Mozilla.org for the developer section, release notes, etc. is certainly not big enough to skew these stats.
Certainly, my analysis is not conclusive. But it raises legitimate questions: What percetange of IE users do not download Firefox? More importantly, if x% IE users do not download Firefox, what's the reason? The gap between the converts and nonloaders of the Internet Explorer crowd seems too huge for the imprecise nature of these stats to account for. (If it's at all possible, I encourage those responsible for maintaining the webalizer stats to filter out all non-MSIE user agents from the report to possibly provide an answer.)
Because we can all easily agree that Firefox is superior to IE, there's only one logical reason for this potential gap: some IE users do not feel Firefox is better than IE. Since they get all their information from the website, that's exactly where the problem resides. Just as I have said a year ago of the Shea sand/purple design I can confidently say about the Cavendish one: "Mozilla's new website is a superficial mask that fails to address the problems of the new idea of marketing towards the masses."
The biggest reason for the IE gap is that Firefox's main selling points still remain unexploited. Despite the 5 million Firefox PR downloads, update.mozilla.org shows that the most popular extension is downloaded daily at a rate of 10,000 while the most popular theme at only 1,500. The mycroft search bar engines page rarely edges past 25,000 pageviews a day. While it's impossible to come up with a ratio of how many users use customization based on such few stats, it can easily be agreed upon that only a very small percentage do, which might not even reach the double digits.
Making users aware of customization is not the only failure of Mozilla.org. The laughably titled "support" page mentions the "help menu" (via F1) and paid phone support, relegating the actual free forum support (via Mozillazine) below the fold. The Guidebook, instead of being the definitive available-to-all documentation, is selling for $11.
Why the hell am I talking about matters that pertain after a user has downloaded Firefox? Precisely because customization and forums (and other help materials) are not primarily post-download concerns. Bringing customization and forums to the attention of endusers will increase downloads dramatically because people like the control customization offers and feel confident with free help. These two pillars of Firefox are both neglected and buried alive within the unnavigable maze that is Mozilla.org. I say bring these to the front and let the people see what Firefox has to offer!
I do not wish to belittle the work of anyone nor more importantly do I want to waste time criticizing what has already been criticized. There's no reason to beat a dead horse: my previous two critiques apply just as well to this one. (With that said, I did make screenshots with my textually overlaid (somewhat humorous) criticisms of the Mozilla.org frontpage [screenshot] and the main Firefox page [screenshot].)
Unlike my last "conceptual" design, this one is a template that is ready for use. While not all the pages are done, you can get a good feel of how the entire site would work with this redesign. The list below gives the proposed structure with links pointing to accessible pages.
The hierarchy is very simple, providing for a maze-less experience. Unlike now, each page has a distinct, unambiguous function: get more downloads.
From textual to visual, the advantages of the new design triumph over the current (Cavendish) or any previous layout.
All in all, there's zero stylistic or technical problems in IE5/6, which can't be said of the Cavendish design, even though the Cavendish code is much simpler than mine. My design's overall color scheme is warm without being tawdry and is clearly brand conscious yet not cold and unemotional like the Cavendish design. (Even the size of HTML/CSS/IMG is smaller!)
While perhaps the only criticism about the main features of my design is that I forget about developers, this failure can remedied with a simple footer. Of course, my lack certainly does not make Cavendish any better as it mixes and combines enduser and developer sections. As Foxtrot points out, there's still no clear demarcation between enduser and developer sections. For example, the make the switch page linked from mozilla.org/products/firefox/ has a developer-oriented menu, with an item for "Hacking," which perhaps doesn't resonate too well with most people. The problem is coupled in that while the content aims to be enduser, it's actually too technical and needlessly verbose at times ("To download Firefox, go to getfirefox.com" - they're already at the download page!), showing that while the writers are trying hard, nerdy developer talk still is the lingua franca of the website. An informative balance must be struck between informercialish ("safer, better, faster") and developerish ("...malicious spyware by not loading harmful ActiveX"). Also, the similar mission pages from 1998 and 2004 reflect the poor hierarchy and stagnation of information that also contributes user-unfriendliness.
If Mozilla.org is too proud of its Cavendish design (and its questionable IE user retention), then I challenge them to put this design on Mozilla.com. Because of the design and other tricks up my crafty ass, I am certain of a few million downloads in six months. Come on now, a full-time college student initiating millions downloads? What's the worst that could happen: a few thousand downloads? Oh, the horror! I'm sure the rarely visited Mozilla.com will serve better as an experimental zone than as an idle redirect.
The newest marketing "strategy" of a newspaper ad is exactly like the butchered website in its completely backwards approach. As reported by Slashdot, there will be a "declaration of independence from a monopolized and stagnant web." Because only a few understand or care about such quasi-political ideologies, they tend to only divide or confuse, not spread the word. Only when Mozilla has significant marketshare can it start such noble crusades. Mark my words, a costly ad will achieve neither a media blitz nor noticably increased downloads.
More importantly, this New York Times ad will cost easily somewhere in the tens of thousands. By unconfirmed rumor, I hear that some guy on Andkon.com provides free design ideas [1] [2] and lengthy instruction guides [1] [2] [3] for $0. Some would claim that if those ideas were implemented, they would produce more downloads than any marketing blitz ever could, just on its first day! I just think that perhaps the nice folks over at Mozilla who pay the bills and the thousands who donated to the ad fund ought to get a note about this.
There is a high probability that many IE users are not downloading Firefox because of a scattered website. It's time to do something concerete that does produce a "simple, easy-to-understand homepage that allows [endusers] to easily understand why they should get Firefox." The solution: the easiest and fastest way to increase Firefox downloads is not to spend exorbitant amounts to attract new users but to keep the ones that are already at the enduser pages.
Post script: At SFX, abarnes suggested a different approach to test the validity of my claims and how to improve the website along the lines of keeping the IE users already at Mozilla.org
While the bulk of the work was done by me, Andkon, at a frantic pace over a few weekends, my thanks extend to all those who tested the work-in-progress, especially Foxtrot. He wrote an essay urging Mozilla.org to get more user-friendly (critiquing the old Shea design though as Cavendish failed to improve much his essay isn't out of date). Since I have many more ideas, feel free to contact me.
Last but not least, I'd like to express my gratitude to Sam T of Ebolaworld.com who makes the world's best flash cartoons, which I would still be saying if he didn't make the Flash demos. My favorite is Tacoman's Halloween Special, but I am partial as you'll see when the movie finishes slash completes.
[1] Quote fully in English: "Arggh... full of excellent critiques/suggestions in this document, and almost none is taken into account in the new [silverorange/cavendish] design."
