[FFYR #2] - Privacy Notice update

[djst]

FFYR priority #2
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1GVQ94lVChlPnbTYgG56wJ-UblkraIfMHJxqYD9KvSOQ/edit#slide=id.g3f2e52f863_0_2

Work should kick off formally with a meeting including David, UX, dev, copy and stakeholder Daniel Kessler (who has input on what we might do).

Success Criteria:

• Page is ported page to Protocol
• headline is updated to be eye-catching copy that speaks to FFYR
• Paragraph below heading is removed
• Accordion is removed
• Is vetted/approved by:
  Product - TBD
  FMB - Maura
  Mozilla Brand - Daniel
  Legal - TBD (MFeldman)
• Live by date x
• a/b test is in place for copy variations

Risks:

• Legal review of copy

[ejregithub]

Sent invite for kickoff meeting for Wed Oct 3rd

[dzingeek]

Talked w/Natalie today about FFYR headline(s). We will sync up Tuesday next week to see where she is.

[djst]

@alexgibson can move forward with rewriting the page to use Protocol components, including expanding/removing the accordion boxes and show the full text instead.

[alexgibson]

@dzingeek first pass at a port to Protocol: https://bedrock-demo-agibson.oregon-b.moz.works/en-US/privacy/firefox/

I've not included any copy or design changes here, other than trying to improve readability over the existing page, and also getting rid of the collapsible accordions.

Note: to see the data privacy widget, you'll need to set the preferecne browser.uitour.testingOrigins to whitelist https://bedrock-demo-agibson.oregon-b.moz.works/.

[dzingeek]

@alexgibson this is great work, it already looks better. Let's sync up in a mini working session to hash out some mini design tweaks when we both have availability.

[alexgibson]

@dzingeek any objections to moving forward with this as-is? We can revisit copy and A/B tests later if this is a good enough default going forward.

If there are some small design tweaks that we could do now still, then let's discuss.

[dzingeek]

@alexgibson let's keep it as is so it's as close to the previous design as possible. As far as moving forward with this I am good with it but let's have @djst make that call.

Also, I kicked this off with Clay yesterday so we should check in with him to see when he will have some headlines for us to look at.

[djst]

Hey @alexgibson, if the question is "can we push this out as is?" and treat the copy A/B test as a separate card, I'm good with that assuming that card gets created. Or this card is kept open and stays in In Progress, either way works for me.

[alexgibson]

@djst Yes we can do that and keep this issue open.

[alexgibson]

Ok, the base privacy page updates are now merged, so we're good to start iterating on copy & design.

[dzingeek]

Copy is still in progress due to Clay being new and Natalie being on PTO.

Clay will be syncing up with Janis this Thursday (10.25.18) to get a better understanding of our new messaging and then he will start working on this.

[xluo-ds]

@rraue not sure whether it's feasible or not to measure how long the user scroll down on this page, and I will spend some time probably early next week to look into that.
@dzingeek will also check why existing FxA users still come to this page.

[stephaniehobson]

The browser opens the privacy notice page by default under certain conditions. Not sure what they are.

[alexgibson]

@rraue not sure whether it's feasible or not to measure how long the user scroll down on this page, and I will spend some time probably early next week to look into that.

We can do this using JS if we need to, although there is a certain irony about scroll tracking people on a page that's all about privacy. As long as it's only a temporary thing, I think we could still do it if it was really the only way to measure engagement.

The browser opens the privacy notice page by default under certain conditions. Not sure what they are.

Firefox opens /privacy/firefox/ as a second tab (along with about:welcome) the first time it's opened using a new profile.

[djst]

To keep implementation simple, wouldn't it be enough to just track whether someone scrolls or not and look for an increase in total scroll rate?

(@alexgibson in response to the privacy irony remark, I see your point but think GA is simply part of our privacy policy so the second the page loads, there's a baseline creepiness factor that we just can't escape. I don't think tracking how someone scrolls is necessarily creepier than tracking where they're from, what OS they're using, whether they bounce or engage on the page, etc.)

[alexgibson]

For every other web page I would agree here @djst, but I think it’s important to consider that this is literally the first page that Firefox opens with a fresh profile. The user has no chance to opt out here, whereas they would with subsequent page visits. I’m not saying let’s not do this, just that we should make sure it’s absolutely necessary.

[djst]

Yeah I'm with you. And I think tracking scroll length is not necessary anyway (unless @rraue strongly feels otherwise); it should be sufficient to just at a tag for when a scroll event triggers.

[rraue]

I agree and that’s what I meant. Any event indicating that the page was used in any way would be great. We don’t need scroll depth just if or if not.

…

-- ______ Send via mobile Raphael Raue Global Head of Seo www.mozilla.org twitter.com/raue

[dzingeek]

Will measuring time on page not be enough? I mean right now it's like 20 seconds or so.

[djst]

I think the theory is that that won't give us enough detail because we have no tags for "did they look at the page?", so we get like 99% bounce. With a scroll tag, we can compare before/after if things are changing. @rraue may have a more accurate answer.

[stephaniehobson]

If I understood Stephen correctly adding the scroll check will distort the bounce rate. If you want to compare before and after accurately we need to have the scroll check in place before updating the content.

[djst]

Exactly. That's the ask: to have the tagging in GTM/GA before a new heading is introduced. By at least a few days. Den tor 1 nov. 2018 22:47 skrev Stephanie Hobson <notifications@github.com>:

…

If I understood Stephen correctly adding the scroll check will distort the bounce rate. If you want to compare before and after accurately we need to have the scroll check in place before updating the content. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6198 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFYHohfhXGuPKFJi0HDO1CMWXAU33COtks5uq2wKgaJpZM4Wwobc> .

[alexgibson]

On existing pages of the site where we do scroll tracking, such as on /firefox, we tag scroll events as non-interactive so as to not effect the bounce rate. We should probably follow suit and do the same here. If we do that, I don’t think it should need to be done ahead of an A/B test but we can confirm with AP.

[rraue]

@alexgibson On most pages scroll is just a non-interaction and shouldn't change the bounce rate but on this page scroll is basically the goal, without a cta. So scrolling should be counted as a non-bounce.

[alexgibson]

@rraue not sure I follow? That kinda backs up what I'm suggesting we do, unless I'm not understanding what you're saying.

[rraue]

I wanted to point out, I think scroll on this page should be not a non-interaction but an active interaction changing the bounce rate by design. If somebody scrolls it should be not a bounce.

I understood you want to set it on this page as well as a non-interaction. Apology if I understood you wrong.

[alexgibson]

I wanted to point out, I think scroll on this page should be not a non-interaction but an active interaction changing the bounce rate by design. If somebody scrolls it should be not a bounce.

Ah, ok i see now - so we want and interactive event, and we do want it to effect the bounce rate. Thanks 👍

[rraue]

But I give you that, we should do this very carefully so its only on informational pages which have no other clear cta so we do not mess with our data.

[djst]

What's left to do here? This has been sitting under In Progress for quite some time now.

[dzingeek]

I don't think we ever got copy. Let me check with Natalie as she was the one working on it way back when.

[dzingeek]

Talked with Natalie she is going to pass it over to @clay-chaffin

[claychaffin]

... whose username is now claychaffin

[ejregithub]

Closing per discussion w. Justin C