Slashdot Mirror

← 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 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.

32 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's just downright suspicious by ZorinLynx · · 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 DontBeAMoran · · 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
    2. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by slack_justyb · · 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.

    3. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by jellomizer · · 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.
    4. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Waffle+Iron · · 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.

    5. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by Rockoon · · 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."
    6. Re:Well that's just downright suspicious by dissy · · 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.

  2. Re:They found out by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    Allegedly.

  3. This will fix that ... by fahrbot-bot · · 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 Chris+Mattern · · 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.

    2. Re:This will fix that ... by fahrbot-bot · · 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. . . .
    3. Re:This will fix that ... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Or just ... you know ... not use the screenshot function?

    4. Re:This will fix that ... by Megane · · 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; }
  4. "dark pattern" by Dan+East · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

    3. Re:"dark pattern" by DontBeAMoran · · 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
    4. Re: "dark pattern" by PPH · · 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.
    5. Re:"dark pattern" by Luthair · · Score: 2

      I've spent 60-70% of my work time developing user interfaces and have never heard of it.

    6. Re:"dark pattern" by Luthair · · Score: 2

      Dark mode has been a common thing for much longer than the past few years.

    7. Re:"dark pattern" by Paxtez · · 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...

    8. Re:"dark pattern" by PPH · · 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.
    9. Re:"dark pattern" by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Evil Pattern
      Manipulative Pattern
      Sucky Pattern
      Theiving Pattern
      Crappy Pattern
      Shitty Pattern
      Lying Pattern

      Dishonest Fuck Pattern

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    10. Re:"dark pattern" by MobyDisk · · 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.

    11. Re: "dark pattern" by thegarbz · · 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/

    12. Re: "dark pattern" by Presence+Eternal · · 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...

    13. Re:"dark pattern" by Megane · · 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; }
  5. Mozilla actually listens to complaints? by xack · · Score: 4, Funny

    Laughs in XUL.

  6. Mozilla sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. How the mighty have fallen by OneHundredAndTen · · 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.

  8. Re:Why? by Gavagai80 · · 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
  9. Re:print screen button? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Firefox Screenshot Tool can capture the whole page -- including sections of the page that can't dimensionally fit on screen.