#91 Presentation and documentation issues from JShelter UX review - native speakers needed
Opened a year ago by polcak. Modified 10 months ago


The JShelter UX review (https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/js-shield/2023-01/pdfCi7H0vUsN_.pdf) identified several issues that seems like a good work for a native speaker or someone that is not a direct developer of JShleter. The point is to improve the description and comprehensibility of the documentation and user-facing texts.

This issue is an extract from the review. We might want to create additional issues linked to this one, decide that we won't fix some of the problems, or fix them directly.

What should be done?

[ ] Release notes don't make sense

How can we improve release notes, how to write them? ATM they typically contain headings from git commits, often rephrased and generalised by Libor

[ ] JShleter descriptions are not illuminating. Explanations in the options are very technical, which might lead people to dismiss them all after encountering material they can't understand, for example: “JavaScript APIs are not wrapped.” There are many spelling mistakes in the help text in the options, which undermines user confidence in the quality of the application.

Update: During work on the i18n, all the texts were spell checked and grammar improved. However, I am certain that a native speaker could improve the texts even more.

A native speaker with experience in user-facing texts should go through the webpage as well as the web store texts. Additionally, check "Firefox About this extension page". The report highlights the structure of the description of https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/duckduckgo-for-firefox/.

The report suggests to add a bullet list of features + benefits and put it between “What is JShelter” and “How does it work?” See https://pagure.io/JShelter/webextension/issue/93 for more sugestions. Se also the descriptions in the options in https://pagure.io/JShelter/webextension/issue/94.

The report suggests to rewrite all the help text, explaining both states in user-facing language (what On does and
why you might want it; what Off does and why you might want that). A UX writer or technical
copy-editor can make all the difference. They could also very usefully edit the website text
and Add-on page at Firefox.

[ ] Get to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/collections/4757633/privacy-matters/

We are on par or superior to https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/canvasblocker/?utm_source=addons.mozilla.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=collection (for example, little lies, looks like we block more APIs although I did not check that we modify all APIs of CanvasBlocker, and we provide other shields)

[ ] The report suggests to participate in discussions on Reddit, especially here: https://www.reddit.com/r/PrivacyGuides/.

I think that Michael looks at these, is that correct?

Metadata Update from @polcak:
- Issue assigned to polcak

a year ago

Metadata Update from @polcak:
- Issue assigned to thomzane (was: polcak)

a year ago

Regarding technical descriptions: the report also indicated that "The help text in options (under the (?)s) is confusing and at a very high technical reading level. It’s easy to decide that this tool is too complicated to use."

This was originally a part of #94 but as it is connected to this issue, I move it here

Log in to comment on this ticket.