Firefox To Remove UI Dark Pattern From Screenshot Tool After Months of Complaints (zdnet.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox To Remove UI Dark Pattern From Screenshot Tool After Months of Complaints (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday January 18, 2019 @07:30AM from the about-time dept.

After months of user complaints, Mozilla will remove a misleading "dark pattern" from its page screenshot utility. From a report: The problematic feature is the "Save" button that appears when Firefox users take a screenshot. The issue is that the Save button doesn't save the screenshot to the PC, as most users would naturally expect, but uploads the image to a Mozilla server. This is both a privacy violation, as some users don't appreciate being tricked into uploading sensitive images saved on remote servers, but also an incovenience as users would still have to download the image locally, but in multiple steps afterward.

127 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well that's just downright suspicious by ZorinLynx · 2019-01-18 07:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would anyone want to upload a screenshot to Mozilla's servers? Usually when you take a screenshot it's because you need to use it locally, as in sending the file to someone, or archiving it.
It seems odd that they'd implement this ability at all; a bit shady even. Surely if you need to upload a screenshot to Mozilla to report a browser bug, it makes more sense to just send the image file you just saved locally.
1. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla doesn't have very much market share. Its primary pull is greater respect for user privacy and what the user wants. It really isn't doing itself any favors with stunts like this.
2. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by radarskiy · 2019-01-18 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  "use it locally, as in sending the file to someone"
  Sending a file to someone is pretty much the opposite of using it locally.
3. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by DontBeAMoran · 2019-01-18 07:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Here's the thing, though. Since they already have the "take screenshot and upload it on a dedicated server" code in place, all they need is to ask the user when taking a screenshot:
  "Do you want to save this screenshot locally on your device (default choice) or upload it to the Mozilla servers?"
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
4. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Luthair · 2019-01-18 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Then they couldn't trick users into using the service to pad their numbers for bonus season.
5. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by slack_justyb · 2019-01-18 08:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why would anyone want to upload a screenshot to Mozilla's servers?
  This is a torn issue. There's A/B testing that shows there's users wanting to take a screenshot and share it. Mozilla is trying (well actually was trying) their hand at being that person who does the sharing as opposed to say imgur or something. This next part being only my opinion, I have reservations about Mozilla being the share folks, they ought to just stick to the browser but I totally understand some of the rationale behind why they'd want to be in the mix. I don't agree with those opinions but again that is just me speaking here.
  
  Usually when you take a screenshot it's because you need to use it locally, as in sending the file to someone, or archiving it
  Well, sending it to someone for some users is providing a shorten link to a web address. I get it, that's not everyone, but reading the boards I think I recall them indicating having use case numbers that indicated that some folks are link sharers. I don't know the specific numbers as that's not obviously in any of their notes they post to the blog/maillist/boards.
  
  It seems odd that they'd implement this ability at all; a bit shady even.
  Again my opinion only, I kind of agree with you there. However, they were (maybe they will in some other incarnation later?) testing out services. What the ultimate goal for services should be pretty obvious, but from mailinglist, I've not heard anything about monetizing services. Again, I don't like it, but I get Mozilla needs cash too. I'll try not to get too political here with things like, "Well if they didn't spend ____ then..." It's mixed bag with me and my opinion here that's worth two cents. So I again, I agree 98% of the way let's say.
  
  Surely if you need to upload a screenshot to Mozilla to report a browser bug, it makes more sense to just send the image file you just saved locally.
  I don't think the screenshot feature is there to facilitate bug reporting. When it was announced, the feature was mostly there to address some use cases from users.
  I do want to point out that a patch was accepted the same day of the issue being raised on Github. However, there was some A/B testing and some discussion about if ditching the upload function altogether should be the course of action. I think that the end of the Test Pilot program settled the debate, which is the servers that were receiving the images. Again, I just want to make sure you absolutely understand, I agree with you, but I can also see why Mozilla might want to test out services and see what the general feel is for that. I don't think it's been glowing reviews everywhere for any of the Test Pilot programs or at least that's my feel I get having read the mailinglist for the last several months now, but also I caution anyone to take anything I say with a grain of salt. I definitely will welcome Mozilla focusing more on Rust/Firefox than these Test Pilot things.
6. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Its primary pull is greater respect for user privacy and what the user wants.
  You're being sarcastic, right? Or maybe you live in some alternate universe.
  Respect for user privacy? A company that takes hundreds of millions of dollars from Google every year? Shirley you jest.
  What users want? LOL.
  Mozilla has spent the last 6+ years destroying everything that made Firefox popular in the first place. Ripping out features that users like, and cramming in more useless unwanted crap. And every complaint from users has been met with a response that is nothing more than a thinly veiled Fuck You.
7. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Aighearach · 2019-01-18 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Presenting a choice might confuse the poor consumer, oops I meant, User.
8. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by jellomizer · 2019-01-18 08:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It seems like a lot of companies are pulling this crap, And I don't know why either. I have worked as a developer for such companies, and they don't know why they are doing it either.
  It is like all the PC users who use this software that is installed on their system, is for the most part massively overpowered, and can handle these requests perfectly fine by themselves. Adding a server component adds complexity to the host software, and adds headache at the server side too as now we have to make sure all this data is extra secure. Because it is traveling over the internet and not just bouncing around the PC memory.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
9. Re: Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  LOL right back at you.
10. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Waffle+Iron · 2019-01-18 09:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here's the thing, though. Since they already have the "take screenshot and upload it on a dedicated server" code in place, all they need is to ask the user when taking a screenshot:
  "Do you want to save this screenshot locally on your device (default choice) or upload it to the Mozilla servers?"
  It looks to me like they don't even need to do that.
  I never even knew that this feature existed (it's hidden under a '...' menu that I've never opened in all these years). So I pulled it up, and I see that there are already two separate buttons: A small "Download" button and a large "Save" button. (The latter has a tiny "cloud" icon in it, which I guess is a subtle clue and/or IQ test.)
  All they really need to do is change the word "Save" to "Upload to cloud", and also change the color and size of the "Download" button to make it equally prominent to the save button. It could be purely styling changes with no change in the code logic.
11. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Rockoon · 2019-01-18 09:59 · Score: 2
  
  All they need to do is change 'Download' to 'Save', and 'Save' to 'Upload'
  
  But maybe that would be too fucking honest, or more accurately, not at all dishonest like the current naming.
  
  Fun fact: Clicking download doesnt download anything, so its a fucking lie, and why would they lie here? I'll give you a fucking guess... its to support the other lie.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
12. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla and Firefox have been scummy garbage for years.
  If you want a great web browser, then do yourself a favour and download Vivaldi.
13. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  It is if I'm sending it to someone in my office or home.
  I guess you don't have a job or family though. You'll understand when you grow up, kid.
14. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  They probably lack the diversity needed in the their product specification process. Old, paranoid and privacy conscious people like myself are not in the loop as annoying Negative Neils and Nellies who stifle innovation and progress and make other people feel bad about life in general. In the future, there will be even more such people using the products. =)
15. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by dissy · 2019-01-18 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is a torn issue. There's A/B testing that shows there's users wanting to take a screenshot and share it.
  
  Well, sending it to someone for some users is providing a shorten link to a web address. I get it, that's not everyone, but reading the boards I think I recall them indicating having use case numbers that indicated that some folks are link sharers.
  
  However, there was some A/B testing and some discussion about if ditching the upload function altogether should be the course of action. I think that the end of the Test Pilot program settled the debate, which is the servers that were receiving the images.
  
  (For others, all three of those quotes are taken from separate parts of parents post)
  All this pretty much boils down to keeping "Save" work the same way "Save" did and always has worked, in firefox and anything else.
  Adding a separate button, perhaps "Share" or "Upload" or even "Publish" shouldn't be so beyond their programmers abilities.
  Had they not changed, nay broken, expected functionality and just simply added the new feature with a new button/label to indicate what was actually happening, I doubt anyone at all would have cared, complained, or had any issue.
  I quoted the parts above because I seriously doubt a single one of those people being tested wanted the "Save" button to do this.
  Not the people who want local copies and expect "Save" to actually save, and not even the ones that wanted a link to give to others who would expect a "Share" button to do that and avoid a "Save" button.
  If their UI people can't manage more than a single button existing (which I could believe) changing the word to actually describe that buttons function should be well within their grasp.
  Of course in that case people wanting a local save would likely complain they removed that feature, but that wouldn't be beyond their standard operating procedure, and certainly wouldn't have resulted in such drama.
  I agree they should be focusing on what they claim to be good at, but if they want to try their hand at an image hosting service, more power to them. Those of us not wanting it would simply ignore that feature and the new button to use it.
  We managed to ignore Pocket just fine after all :P
  But not adding a button with a proper description, or replacing the existing Save button, is just outright misleading to everyone, and no matter the actual case is really hard for a user to accept was anything but intentional and for nefarious purposes.
  For those wanting a local copy, Save is now broken and has potential serious problems with what happens.
  For those wanting a link, they aren't going to even bother clicking Save since that doesn't ever give you a link, and they will still think Firefox can't do the thing they want despite the misleading button actually doing so.
16. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 22:22 · Score: 0
  
  Here's the thing, though. Since they already have the "take screenshot and upload it on a dedicated server" code in place, there'll come the day where some.actor.somewhere will push a software button on their C&C console and the screenshots will be uploaded, and the user will be none the wiser...until the contents of said screenshots are then used against them.
17. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  Surely if you need to upload a screenshot to Mozilla to report a browser bug, it makes more sense to just send the image file you just saved locally.
  Not as convienient
18. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Megane · 2019-01-19 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  their UI people
  These aren't "UI" people, they're "UX" people. The difference is that one cares about things like usability and understandability, and the other wants to make some kind of artistic statement, rejecting existing UIs as passé and in need of change simply because they are old.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
19. Re: Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  I don't jest... And don't call me surely
20. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 05:11 · Score: 0
  
  I've been using a browser based on mozilla code and I'm beginning to suspect some security issues related to conversations with the mothership. Some of the URLs referenced in about:config are http and I think its possible to interfere with installed addons.
Re:They found out by Aighearach · 2019-01-18 07:35 · Score: 2

Allegedly.
This will fix that ... by fahrbot-bot · 2019-01-18 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative

Update your "about:config" settings or edit your "user.js" file - problem solved.

// Disable Firefox Screenshots
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.disabled", true);
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.system-disabled", true);
user_pref("extensions.screenshots.upload-disabled", true);

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:This will fix that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that and a 410K patch that alters 917 files in 113 directories and you'll have a Firefox that's nearly as good as it was five years ago.
2. Re:This will fix that ... by Chris+Mattern · 2019-01-18 07:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Update your "about:config" settings or edit your "user.js" file - problem solved.
  Well, let' see here, I figure about 1% of Mozilla's users are technically proficient enough to try this, or even be all that aware of the problem or that there might be a fix for it, Of that number, about 1% are going to be able to figure out this incredibly intuitive procedure. Yeah, this solves the problem.
  It's on open display, in an unlit basement with a door marked "Beware of The Leopard", at the bottom of a locked file cabinet. Really, I don't see how there's any problem at all.
3. Re:This will fix that ... by DontBeAMoran · 2019-01-18 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  There won't be any problems if you know where your towel is.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
4. Re:This will fix that ... by Local+ID10T · 2019-01-18 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Update your "about:config" settings or edit your "user.js" file - problem solved.
  
  // Disable Firefox Screenshots
  user_pref("extensions.screenshots.disabled", true);
  user_pref("extensions.screenshots.system-disabled", true);
  user_pref("extensions.screenshots.upload-disabled", true);
  My god, that is so obvious! I should have thought of doing it in the first place!
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
5. Re: This will fix that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:42 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget to bring a towel - towelie
6. Re: This will fix that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  I trust about 7% of your statistics
7. Re:This will fix that ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2019-01-18 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  So will "Programs | Install/Uninstall | Firefox | Uninstall"
  
  Seriously, I'm surprised that "Firefox" is still a front-page brand on Slashdot in 2019.
8. Re:This will fix that ... by fahrbot-bot · 2019-01-18 10:55 · Score: 2
  
  Of that number, about 1% are going to be able to figure out this incredibly intuitive procedure. Yeah, this solves the problem.
  Well... It gets easier when your first instinct to any Firefox "feature" announcement becomes: Google "firefox disable [feature]"
  
  It's on open display, in an unlit basement with a door marked "Beware of The Leopard", at the bottom of a locked file cabinet. Really, I don't see how there's any problem at all.
  When it comes to Firefox, the word yellow is always wandering through my mind in search of something to connect with...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
9. Re:This will fix that ... by thegarbz · 2019-01-18 11:44 · Score: 2
  
  Or just ... you know ... not use the screenshot function?
10. Re:This will fix that ... by buck-yar · 2019-01-18 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  I have added your lines to my "Firefox telemetry and data collection denial" user.js script.
  I recommend everyone use the following settings for their user.js:
  https://gist.github.com/MrYar/...
11. Re:This will fix that ... by fahrbot-bot · 2019-01-18 19:06 · Score: 1
  
  And to think my post got 10% Troll and 20% Overrated mods. Ah... /.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
12. Re:This will fix that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  The problem there is...the screenshot function code is still sitting there, lurking in the browser, biding it's time...
  Ignore it, you don't use it, these are not the droids you're looking for...then one fine day
  if ($percentage_screen_flesh_tone > 30) take_snapshot($server1)
  if ($text_content_subversive_index > 5) take_snapshot($server2)
  etc. etc.
  (I'll just crawl back into my tinfoil lined hole in the ground...)
13. Re:This will fix that ... by Megane · 2019-01-19 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  "Digital" (as in DEC) is also still one. It usually gets abused by submitters who have never heard of DEC.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
14. Re:This will fix that ... by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  Let's just aim for 1% browser marketshare for Mozilla
"dark pattern" by Dan+East · 2019-01-18 07:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Using the term "dark pattern" while discussing a UI design is about the stupidest and confusing thing you could do. I was literally thinking there was some visual element that was dark. How about call it "deceptive", "misleading" or "confusing"? Sheesh. Your job is to write. Take a little pride in your work and think about what your words actually convey.

--
Better known as 318230.
1. Re:"dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · 2019-01-18 07:45 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Dark pattern is the accepted term for deceptive user interfaces and has been for a around a decade. It exists as a bucket term because of the large number of methods used.
2. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to punch the prick in the face that came up with dark pattern. It's possibly one of the dumbest terms in tech there is.
3. Re: "dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Never heard of it before this Slashdot story. Go outside some more.
4. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's a stupid choice, and is confusing. I agree with Dan East, ANYTHING else would have been better. Some options:
  Evil Pattern
  Manipulative Pattern
  Sucky Pattern
  Theiving Pattern
  Crappy Pattern
  Shitty Pattern
  Lying Pattern
  Why even include "pattern"??? Why not
  Evil UI
  Lying GUI
  Corrupt Design
  Immoral Interfaces
  Seriously, DARK PATTERNS seems almost interesting or a curiousity of emo designers. Not the evil treacherous vile scum shit fuck that it is. Seriously, don't defend this really really shitty choice.
  My paranoia says this label was chosen for the _express_ purpose of diminishing the danger and horrendous effects it has on people.
  Dark patterns can suck it. We need a new phrase.
5. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:55 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Or you could, you know... use terminology in the standard way it has come to be used throughout the industry.
6. Re:"dark pattern" by DontBeAMoran · 2019-01-18 08:01 · Score: 2
  
  It's confusing, especially because of the rise of the "Dark mode GUI" thing that's been going on for the last few years.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
7. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:02 · Score: 0
  
  No it has not
8. Re: "dark pattern" by PPH · 2019-01-18 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Never heard of it before this Slashdot story.
  Nor have I. But I guess we have exposed ourselves as not being 'hip'. The Web is more and more about being hip, not actually getting anything productive done.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
9. Re:"dark pattern" by Luthair · 2019-01-18 08:05 · Score: 2
  
  I've spent 60-70% of my work time developing user interfaces and have never heard of it.
10. Re:"dark pattern" by Luthair · 2019-01-18 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  Dark mode has been a common thing for much longer than the past few years.
11. Re:"dark pattern" by PPH · 2019-01-18 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Because the practice of referring to this as a 'dark pattern' is deceptive, misleading and confusing. The average user will look at the headline, and try to remember the last time the UI looked a bit too dim.
  "Nope. I guess this doesn't apply to me." And go on saving screen shots to Mozilla servers.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
12. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Agree, I hate it.
  Rather than creating new terms that are niche and in this case not very descriptive we should keep the language simple.
  We seem to thrive on complexity, but we should drive for simplicity. It is more scale-able.
  Humans seem to have this problem across many fields. People creating their own jargon, acronyms and so on.
  It is a barrier to communication and often not needed.
  Maybe it makes them feel special or superior, set apart from the common folk ?
  I bet someone has this listed as one of their achievements : I coined the term 'dark pattern...'
  I don't think that is something to be proud of. Sadly I think less of them without even knowing them and that is probably unfair.
13. Re: "dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  Even in 2010 it should have been obvious not to use the term "dark" as a synonym for evil or malicious in the context of UI where the word "dark" already has specific and frequently used meaning of something to do with color.
  "Firefox to remove anti-privacy UI pattern ..."
  would not have been confusing and also wouldn't attribute malice where the team only has mental disability.
14. Re:"dark pattern" by Paxtez · 2019-01-18 08:26 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I've never heard the term either and it is losing relevance.
  It peaked in Nov 2005, it is about 34% as popular now.
  https://trends.google.com/tren...
15. Re:"dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · 2019-01-18 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe they should've put the term in quotes, but then they could be accused of using "scare quotes". A term I imagine you also hate. Along with things like "fast follow" and "disk drive".
16. Re:"dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · 2019-01-18 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh wait, they DID use quotes.
17. Re:"dark pattern" by sexconker · 2019-01-18 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Accepted term amongst whom? UI/UX experts who sniff their own farts? I have never encountered this shit in my too many years.
18. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Dark pattern is the accepted term for deceptive user interfaces and has been for a around a decade.
  BULLSHIT!
19. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  When it comes to misleading images on buttons of software, I think we'd rather use the term "decepticons."
20. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  I thought "asshole design" was the accepted nomenclature.
21. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Never heard of it until today, cockwad.
22. Re:"dark pattern" by PPH · 2019-01-18 09:14 · Score: 2
  
  I suppose if I bought a domain name (like https://darkpatterns.org/) I'd try to make everyone feel like a dweeb for not standardizing on my trademark.
  Wait! Could this be some kind of trick?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
23. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of it either, and I've been around doing dev, testing, graphic design, UI design for much longer than a decade.
24. Re:"dark pattern" by Rockoon · 2019-01-18 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  Evil Pattern
  Manipulative Pattern
  Sucky Pattern
  Theiving Pattern
  Crappy Pattern
  Shitty Pattern
  Lying Pattern
  Dishonest Fuck Pattern
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
25. Re:"dark pattern" by MobyDisk · 2019-01-18 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  It exists as a bucket term.
  Did you just make up a term, while trying to define a made-up term? I just looked for "bucket term" on Google and didn't find it. Even urbandictionary doesn't have it. Next you'll tell me that it's a perfectly cromulent word.
26. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree with you therefore your statement is problematic
27. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of this and I build UI's on a daily basis. I'm not a liberal arts fucktard though.
28. Re: "dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, he knows too much, it's upsetting.. He should spend some time not learning things, to make anon more comfortable.
29. Re:"dark pattern" by UnknownSoldier · 2019-01-18 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Oh look, a self-serving definition:
  
  The neologism dark pattern was coined by Harry Brignull in August 2010 with the registration of darkpatterns.org
  
  So what the fuck did everyone call it BEFORE 2010???
  Gee, maybe deceptive UI or bad UI
  Stop making up bullshit terms.
30. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  bullshit. maybe in the "design" circles full of fags and retards you frequent. no actual person uses this term.
31. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 11:25 · Score: 0
  
  More like DORK pattern.
32. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  Dark pattern is the accepted term for deceptive user interfaces and has been for a around a decade. It exists as a bucket term because of the large number of methods used.
  Of course, someone calling himself "Presence Eternal" WOULD be dorky enough to know this.
33. Re: "dark pattern" by thegarbz · 2019-01-18 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  One can't be expected to know every term used in every field, or even in one field. For being called "hip" this website has been around for nearly a decade calling out and shaming shady practices: https://darkpatterns.org/
34. Re:"dark pattern" by thegarbz · 2019-01-18 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Could that be because you're a good developer and not a shady shit working for Facebook? It's not really a new term. There's even been a website around that publishes a continuously rolling hall of shame for the past 10 years: https://darkpatterns.org/
35. Re: "dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · 2019-01-18 12:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You're right, it's an obscure phrase that people only used briefly on obscure websites years ago.
  https://www.theverge.com/2013/...
  https://techcrunch.com/2018/07...
  https://mashable.com/article/f...
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
  https://www.howtogeek.com/fyi/...
  https://arstechnica.com/inform...
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/sc...
  https://gizmodo.com/dark-patte...
  https://phys.org/news/2018-04-...
  https://www.extremetech.com/in...
  https://venturebeat.com/2018/0...
  https://sdtimes.com/addiction/...
  https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/15...
36. Re:"dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · 2019-01-18 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  This kind of thing happens to me constantly. Google accuses me of being a robot on a regular basis.
37. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 13:22 · Score: 0
  
  In that sense, "dark pattern" is an excellent name because it describes itself. At least, an excellent name for the website which coined the term for itself.
  For any professional (compared to fad followers), "anti-pattern" was the term in use for far longer and still is the term to use. However both imply that there's a related pattern which exists. I can't think of a common pattern name which stands for "when user tries to save file the SW will save the file to an expected or prompted location". Perhaps that's just called "saving". So Firefox was engaged in a "screenshot saving anti-pattern" and that conveys far better details than "Screenshot UI Dark Pattern" With all the UI changes over the last decade, all modern UIs are themselves dark patterns.
  Plus, what happened to all the SJWs? When I interned at Microsoft, there was a huge list of politically incorrect terms we weren't allowed to use. You couldn't name something "blacklist", it had to be "blocklist". Where's all the idiots claiming "Dark Pattern" is raciest thus shouldn't be used?
38. Re: "dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard of it before this Slashdot story.
  Nor have I. But I guess we have exposed ourselves as not being 'hip'. The Web is more and more about being hip, not actually getting anything productive done.
  It's about being hip AND widdit.
39. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  Using the term "dark pattern" while discussing a UI design is about the stupidest and confusing thing you could do. I was literally thinking there was some visual element that was dark.
  
  Yep, I thought that too.
  
  How about call it "deceptive", "misleading" or "confusing"? Sheesh.
  Bears repeating.
  I think particularly with "dark mode" going on, "dark pattern" is a very bad term. Also, it isn't intuitive at all. A button is not a pattern. If we are talking about deceptive or misleading things, they should be referred to as such.
  The people who say that dark pattern is a standard term are probably the same people who insist on UIs having dark gray text on light gray backgrounds. Screw 'em!
40. Re: "dark pattern" by Megane · 2019-01-19 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  years ago
  So why are most of your links with dates in the URL from 2018?
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
41. Re:"dark pattern" by Megane · 2019-01-19 00:58 · Score: 2
  
  That wikipedia page first appeared in 2017, so it's not exactly showing this as being a well-established "standard" term. But this is par for the course among "UX" types, who have to make up new shit all the time to feel like they have purpose, rather than try to avoid ambiguity. Actually, I think it's more likely that someone in the tech press industry came up with it.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
42. Re:"dark pattern" by Megane · 2019-01-19 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Seems like I was wrong, it started with one guy registering it as a web site domain? It smelled like a forced meme, and I guess it was.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
43. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. Never heard it before.
  Thought it was something to do with a night time dark theme so it isn't too bright.
  Poor choice of words, apparently over a decade ago.
44. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Dark pattern is the accepted term for deceptive user interfaces
  No it isn't.
45. Re: "dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · 2019-01-19 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's the joke.
46. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  Since I am in tune with the all inclusive oneness it is your disagreement which is the problem.
47. Re:"dark pattern" by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-20 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  bull fucking shit
Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by xack · 2019-01-18 07:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Laughs in XUL.
1. Re:Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  That hurts. Too soon.
  RIP XUL.
  I dropped Mozilla after they killed it officially. Support and all.
  XUL should have replaced that shitheap HTML, that's for sure.
  All it needed was a bit of tidying up, addition of features HTML has that XUL never, and actual effort.
  But then evil Mozilla happened. Mozilla create then get teleported to an evil universe where they destroy.
  HTML5 and CSS3 are fucking terrible. Terribly with a capital Terri. Who is Terri? Fuck if I know, but she is pissed.
  Seriously though, they are really bad. The hacks that disaster has just to make a decent interface is astounding. 3 separate competing standards to get away from Tables for Layout. All around 10,000+ lines of code, all overhead-heavy. Great job WHATWG!
  Did any of these wanks ever think of just copy-pasting the code that tables use and just updating it a bit?
  No, too busy sucking off the likes of Ben and his sidebar-hating ass. Literal casual at web-browsing making decisions and opinions on interfaces for browsers. He's done a top-tier job for Chrome, top job. These bubble windows are so useful mmmm.
  Still, at least none of them are XHTML2.
2. Re:Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by BlackOverflow · 2019-01-18 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  You can still use XUL and all the old extensions in Palemoon. New Palemoon version released Tuesday of this week!
3. Re:Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  You can still use XUL but the old extensions are mostly gone now. Only a subset are available.
4. Re:Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by Megane · 2019-01-19 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a user of a different Mozilla fork (Seamonkey, which is what became of the original Netscape after Firefox took over), and from what I've been seeing on the support forums, it looks like the Firefox crowd have been Ministry of Information-ing anything related to old style extensions both from the extensions server (even those made for alternate browsers that still support them), and from the Gecko code base in general.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
5. Re:Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-21 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Laughs in XUL.
  
  There is no XUL, only Dana!
fall of FF by raphael75 · 2019-01-18 07:37 · Score: 1

It's unbelievable how far Firefox and Mozilla have fallen. They were doing so well and had 30+% market share, then completely blew it. Things like this screenshot debacle are so sad and preventable. They aren't even trying to be relevant or useful anymore.
1. Re: fall of FF by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  The organization is basically supported by an advertising company (google) who just so happens to also develop and distribute a web browser that steals more of your information for them. Their ruler is getting exactly what they paid for.
Mozilla sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

But at least they have a very diverse board and an uncompromising CoC!
1. Re:Mozilla sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla made a mistake here. Google/FB/Amazon on the other hand would be happy to image your desktop to the cloud! Better upload your dick pic too, so they can "make sure" it doesn't go viral, right moron Trumptard?
2. Re:Mozilla sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla has a special thing for very diverse broads with dicks. I think it's called "Rust"
3. Re:Mozilla sucks by Megane · 2019-01-19 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Q: How do you know when someone programs in Rust (or Go)?
  A: They'll tell you.
  
  --
  #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
print screen button? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 07:49 · Score: 0

What was wrong with the "print screen" button? It pops up a screenshot tool that isn't limited to Firefox and doesn't "share" the screenshot off my local system.
Why do programs keep feeling the need to re-invent the wheel?
1. Re:print screen button? by Fly+Swatter · 2019-01-18 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Why do programs keep feeling the need to monetize the wheel?
  
  FTFY.
2. Re:print screen button? by CrashNBrn · 2019-01-18 09:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Firefox Screenshot Tool can capture the whole page -- including sections of the page that can't dimensionally fit on screen.
3. Re:print screen button? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  So if you use this "screenshot" tool it uploads an image of stuff that's not on the screen? The plot thickens.
4. Re:print screen button? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 18:44 · Score: 0
  
  That's not a bad feature actually.
  But really if it's doing what you say then it's not a "screen capture" tool instead it is a "render to bitmap" feature, and could have other options, like rendering at higher, or lower, resolution than the screen.
  Such a feature should have been part of the "Page Save/Export" tools, alongside features like "save as complete HTML", "save as original HTML", "save as PDF", and so on.
Firefox slouch towards oblivion by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:10 · Score: 0

Firefox's lack of concern for privacy and failure to consider end user use cases is slouching its way to oblivion.
'but the user volunteered to upload the screen capture to our servers' /editors - Journalism 101 don't user a term coined by a subset of an interest group in a general purpose headline read by readers outside that interest group.
'Dark pattern' ....ahhhhh memories of ordering our business unit to use 'proof of concept' or 'prototype' instead of the not conveying any information 'spike' from a few years ago.
Conqueror 101 mantra: "Rename cities, monuments, roads, holidays, traditions and ceremonies after you conquer a civilization".
Blog writers, vendors, book/training sales persons, self-promoting consultants, etc. all do it to promote their brand.
better solution by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:16 · Score: 0

Takeaway - Don't use a web browser for screenshots.
There is a much better tool that will store locally:
Lightscreen
Lightscreen Portable
How the mighty have fallen by OneHundredAndTen · 2019-01-18 08:21 · Score: 2

It's sad to see how Firefox, that used to be a champion of privacy and freedom, has all but completed its transition to the dark side.
Why? by jawtheshark · 2019-01-18 08:26 · Score: 1

Why does a browser even need a screenshot functionality? Your OS can do that just fine.

--
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
1. Re:Why? by Gavagai80 · 2019-01-18 08:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, your OS cannot screenshot a full webpage including all parts beyond the vertical and horizontal scrolls.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
2. Re:Why? by jawtheshark · 2019-01-18 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  You do realise that the word screenshot implies that it's on-screen. If it can make images based on stuff that is not on screen, it's not a screenshot. By definition! It's an image rendering of a webpage at that point.
  
  --
  Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, that is why its called a screenshot.
  What mozilla is doing instead should be called a "full page capture" or something like it.
  Than again, that would be little more than "save page as" -> "Webpage, Complete" already does.
  And maybe FireFox not saving the page capture to local storage is even a blessing in disguise: just imagine the poor soul doing a "screenshot", subsequently sending it to his (color) printer and instead of getting a single sheet of what he was interrested in getting a heap of them. With the price of printer ink that would not be funny ...
4. Re:Why? by freeze128 · 2019-01-19 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  I can print it to a PDF...
5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Browser still doesn't need it.
  That's what extensions are for.
  Not everyone needs bunches of lines of code taking up vital cycles just sitting doing nothing.
  Firefox in a nutshell. Stole a shitload of extensions code and features, then got rid of them over time.
  Yet, hilariously, the piece of shit is still slower today than it has ever been. I tried it on an old WinXP machine just for shits and giggles. Holy hell it's unusable. (obviously before the XP cutoff versions, but they aren't much better)
  I seriously don't get Firefox. Like, full-on confused. How can Mozilla be so incompetent?
  It's not even funny how bad Firefox is now. It's beyond a joke. It's honestly worse than GIMP now. At least GIMP runs reasonably fast, even if it does have a SHIT UI. FF is just plain shit.
Bummer by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 08:58 · Score: 0

The trend from Mozilla lately is distressing.
#shitholebrowser by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 09:08 · Score: 0

What garbage.
Re: Your Screen Sounds Tiny by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 09:09 · Score: 0

Get more monitors choad!
Keep jumping that fucking shark, Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 10:59 · Score: 0

Idiots.
not a furry? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 11:36 · Score: 0

or, if you are not a furry, you could use Waterfox instead.
Never knew that by AndyKron · 2019-01-18 12:21 · Score: 1

Huh? I didn't know Firefox had that. I just use alt + prtscn like I've done since forever.
God damn it by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 13:47 · Score: 0

Just render Web pages, OK?
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2019-01-18 14:35 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2019-01-18 14:40 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Download"? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-18 18:33 · Score: 0

the blue Save button is also going away, and will most likely be replaced with a "Download" button
Saving a local screenshot isn't downloading. So what does "Download" mean? Is this Mozilla admitting they upload the screenshot to their server without asking? That would be worse than a mislabeled button.
What is the advantage of this button? by Monster_user · 2019-01-19 02:26 · Score: 1

What is the advantage of this button over tried and true screenshotting methods like "Alt+PrintScreen" followed by a Ctrl+V into MSPaint?

Or SnagIt, or Greenshot, or the Windows Screen Snipping Tool.
1. Re: What is the advantage of this button? by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-19 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  Information is power. The value of this screenshot tool is that google, er, pozilla, gets more of your information when you use it!
It's obvious! by Anonymous Coward · 2019-01-20 22:42 · Score: 0

I just looked at the screenshot of the "problem"..
There's a download icon (an arrow pointing down)
There's an upload icon (an arrow pointing up to a cloud).
Now, I'm not a "ux dude", I spend most of my time in vim and bash.. So how the hell anyone can get that confused is beyond me..
Retake: An arrow pointing up to a cloud, what the heck would you expect that to mean if not "put this online" ?