There’s been a long discussion on one of the Mozilla mailing lists about how we can do a better job categorizing and triaging incoming bugs. This is my contribution, which I felt deserved a somewhat broader audience.
Attention conservation notice: thousand-word rant about the user friendliness of a bug database.
I, a developer, frequently have trouble figuring out which component I ought to file a bug under, especially when it’s not in one of the areas I work on—which is when it’s most important for me to get it right, so that it comes to the attention of people who do work on that area. It doesn’t help that, for any given bug, I might be supposed to file it under Firefox or under Core, each of which has a dauntingly long list that you have to scroll through via a five-line selection box. (I was hoping that the 3.2 upgrade would at least give me a bigger box, but it didn’t; showing the descriptions is nice but often the descriptions are just as cryptic to me as the names themselves.)
So I think the user-facing problem—the product+component space is too big and daunting—is more serious than the possibility that QA won’t scale to handle increased triage responsibilities. If MozCo needs to hire some (more?) people whose entire job is to triage bugs, well, I have the impression there’s room in the budget for that.
Now, the component list isn’t the only daunting thing about the new-bug form. I’m looking at it now, and to get to the important part—the description-of-bug box—I have to scroll past an entire screenful of form fields. And I have a huge monitor. And I know that most of the time I can leave all those fields blank. The
bugzilla helper is even worse; the first thing you see is a giant confusing table of already-filed bugs. I appreciate the attempt to reduce the number of dupes but I’d bet a dollar that lots of users see that and give up without even reading it!
Oh, and halfway down the bugzilla helper it tells you to report broken websites a totally different way. It’s good that we have a guided wizard built into firefox for that–but it’s very bad to let someone get halfway down the page before telling them, no, wait, stop, do something totally different! It’s also bad to demand that the user go try the latest development version before they do anything else, and for the first thing they see when they open the wizard (presumably first time only, but still) to be a minuscule box containing over a thousand words of legalese.
I think we could make life easier for both users and QA by doing some serious user interface redesign on the new bug forms. I’m imagining a directed question-and-answer session with no more than seven (plus or minus two) options at each stage, eventually leading up to one or two freeform entry boxes. The goal of this would be to do a rough-cut categorization that makes less work for human triagers, and at the same time tries to get enough information out of the user that we don’t need to go back for more. It should be clear to people unfamiliar with the terms, but not insulting to experienced users; I think if we do it right it would be easier for everyone than the current form.
For developers it might be good to have a special mode for when you’re filing a bug to describe a specific chunk of work that’s already planned. This could do things like deduce the correct component and suggest reviewers/cc: subscribers from file names or bug numbers mentioned in the description, or even in the patch that you’re attaching as you file the bug.
This is getting pretty far offtopic, but I’d also like to bring up a pet peeve of mine: I don’t think we should ever tell people to stop commenting on a bug. I do realize that when there are widely-cc:ed, widely-commented-on, long-standing, not-gonna-be-fixed-soon bugs, it’s no fun to be on the receiving end of all that mail, and the me-toos can obscure any actual technical discussion that might get the bug solved. Too often, though, I see that turning into hostility to users. A
leave us alone response to a
hey this is still a problem for me comment is a great way to ensure that that person never reports a bug again.
I think there ought to be a way for a bug to host a deeply technical conversation about how to fix it and a long train of me-toos at the same time, but I don’t have any great ideas, probably because I read too fast for it to be a serious problem for me.