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

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.

Comments

Well that's just downright suspicious

[ZorinLynx]

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.

Re:Well that's just downright suspicious

[slack_justyb]

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.

Re:Well that's just downright suspicious

[dissy]

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.

"dark pattern"

[Dan East]

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.

Re: "dark pattern"

[PPH]

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.

Mozilla sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least they have a very diverse board and an uncompromising CoC!

Re:This will fix that ...

[Chris Mattern]

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.