For bug 1203953 we want to rename "sideload" to "bundled".

We should also make sure that we describe what bundled means. In the mockup, I have described it as “This add-on will be bundled inside a software installer. Review should take place in approximately 10 days.”

I have used the term "bundle your add-on with an application installer" in follow ups with developers for some time. Some developers have trouble understanding what this means. I'm not sure whether there is even a better term without having a wall of text.

Maybe we can have your explanation that has been tested with developers – “This add-on will be bundled with an application installer” – and then a link to learn more? On this page, we can have a full explanation. What do you think?

I don't think "with" vs "inside" makes a huge difference. My point is that some developers still have trouble understanding even though we don't use "sideload" anymore. A further explanation what it means would be good, but I'm concerned that: * if it's on another page/not directly visible (tooltip/popover), people will not bother to click/hover and read it * if it's on the same page/directly visible, it will be too much of text and people will not read it.

(In reply to Andreas Wagner [:TheOne] from comment #4) > A further explanation what it means would be good, but I'm concerned that: > * if it's on another page/not directly visible (tooltip/popover), people > will not bother to click/hover and read it > * if it's on the same page/directly visible, it will be too much of text and > people will not read it. I propose two suggestions to help clarify bundled add-ons: 1. Make help area visible but relatively short. This is not perfect, but it’s a better compromise than going to either extremes: hide help text behind tooltip/in another page, or show a long text on the page. * One thing we can also do is to have a “learn more” link * Another thing we can do is to have pictures in the help text area 2. Completely separate selecting where the add-on is hosted, and how the add-on is bundled. So instead of the naming on the old mockup: * If hosted on AMO * Promoted and/or Bundled * Unpromoted/Experimental * If self-hosted * Self-hosted * Bundled We rename them to something like this: * If hosted on AMO * Hosted by Mozilla * Hosted by Mozilla – bundled * Hosted by Mozilla – unpromoted * Hosted by Mozilla – unpromoted and bundled * If self-hosted * On My Server * On My Server – bundled Furthermore, the email you sent me had shown that some developers will still select the “bundled” checkbox without understanding what it means (perhaps because they like to leave everything checked, for a sense of completion?). There are two things we can do about this: The #1 thing we can do is to make selecting the preferred option easier. This is why, on my mockup below, the “bundled” option is not checked by default. The #2 thing to do may be to make it hard to select bundled (not shown in mockup). For example, after developers check “bundled”, we can display an interstitial message that will say something like “Do you understand what bundled means? Do you understand that it’s not appropriate for most add-ons? Are you sure you still want to continue with bundling your add-on?”. This is frustrating to developers who really need bundle, but it will mean that less people will check that option. I don’t think that we need solution #2. However, if you get lots of emails from developers who don’t understand what bundled means, despite explanation and documentation available, we may have to do it. Here’s the logic diagram that explains my proposal: http://f.cl.ly/items/0r1k1a252j1p0b1q1k2O/Add-on%20submission%20wireframes%20-%20Distribution%20explanation.png What do you think?

I briefly talked to Lisa about this and we agreed that we should have another meeting to discuss and explain the details. Setting Lisa on needinfo to remind her.

Since we no longer make the distinction between sideloaded and non-sideloaded, this has become obsolete.