Is it too late to change your name to AAA Firefox?

Apple Safari
Google Chrome
Microsoft Explorer
Mozilla Firefox
Opera Browser

There, alphabetically ordered.

Asa, randomized ordering does NOT solve the bias problem at all. For the end-user who sees the ballot screen, there's always a top listed choice, and that means this particular user will be more likely to choose that choice over others, thus randomizing the list is just shifting bias from one user to another.

Alphabetical listing is generally considered the de-facto standard way of presenting an unbiased list (for example, listing credits for movies, music albums, TV series, software developers, etc.) Randomizing the order each time doesn't make it any better to the end-user, which is what actually matters.

The only way to make an unbiased list better than alphabetical listing is to use animation, for example listing the browsers in a circle and making them move clockwise or anti-clockwise, then it will be less bias in the choices for the end-user to choose from.

kaixin001,

I think you have a great point. However, the purpose of randomization IS in fact to spread the bias equally among all the browsers, so that the "top browser" biases for each browser is canceled out by those of others. Therefore, it makes the competition fair. Whatever browser rises above others in a randomized system is in fact the preference of consumers, because that would indicate that a good deal of people are choosing even when it is not the top listed choice.

You still have the problem that a lot of people think that the blue e is the internet. That will be the only thing they recognize and click. This ballot screen will always come when you just want to use the computer.

Ask for the browser name to come before the company name... :p

Firefox (Mozilla)
Google Chrome (Google)
Internet Explorer (Microsoft)*
Opera (Opera ASA)
Safari (Apple)

*No longer "Microsoft Internet Explorer" since version 7, for the record. Now it's "Windows Internet Explorer", but since Microsoft says, as quoted above, that they want to stay free of any bias, I guess "Windows" should be taken out of the name.

Follow up:

http://jboriss.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/current_ballot_design1.png
(Ballot design proposed by Microsoft)

Microsoft themselves call their browser Microsoft Internet Explorer 8. Did they switch back the name? I'm confused.

"For the end-user who sees the ballot screen, there's always a top listed choice, and that means this particular user will be more likely to choose that choice over others,"

Asa's point assumes that the user will click the top choice.

As the top choice will be random, there is no bias for a specific browser.

Mr Lizard: did you miss the part that says it's actually going to be in *alphabetical* order?

Stifu,

No, I was responding to kaixin001's comment.

I can't believe so much time and effort is being wasted on talking about the finer details of this stupid ballot screen. The vast majority of people do not install Windows themselves and will presumably never see it. If they do, most people will make a completely uninformed decision whether biased by left-to-right ordering or not.

Short of having people read a mandatory essay on web standards and interoperability, I'm not sure what Microsoft can really do any better. Randomisation would be awful for anyone who repeatedly installs Windows, and basically useless for people who'll do it once.

Ben Basson, every existing Windows machine in Europe where IE is the default is going to present its owner with this ballot. That's probably about 170 million people who are going to be asked which browser they want. Then, and for the next 5 years, every new machine that a person buys in Europe and starts up is going to ask them what browser they want to use (Europeans buy about 60 million PCs a year) .

You don't think that almost half a billion people seeing this ballot is going to have any impact or matter in any way?

- A

"The vast majority of people do not install Windows themselves and will presumably never see it."

You are correct about 1/2 of that sentence.
The vast majority of instances of Windows on PC's were installed by the computer manufacturer.
Unless you believe that there are more individual copies of Windows sold over OEM included ones.

"every existing Windows machine in Europe where IE is the default is going to present its owner with this ballot."

Well, that sounds like it'll create a lot of irritation, but ok, I didn't know this. I assumed it'd be done at install time only. Clearly more people are going to see this screen than I anticipated.

"You don't think that almost half a billion people seeing this ballot is going to have any impact or matter in any way?"

I didn't say it won't have an impact, of course it will. The impact will be mostly good, but that doesn't mean the method is good.

You seem to be saying that a randomly ordered list is better than a static list. I don't really see that it is. In both cases anyone who isn't sure what to do is either picking the first icon they see, or the most attractive or familiar icon. They're not going to take the time to research this choice, and they might end up with a product that they dislike (including IE).

I'm sure the ballot improve the market share distribution, but it's hardly a panacea solution, and randomising would make it more frustrating for repeat users.

Ben, random for first encounter, then static. It's easy. If a user opens the ballot a second time, it'll look just like it did the first time.

The goal of randomization is not to help the user make a better choice, it's to satisfy this clause in the agreement:

"Nothing in the design and implementation of the Ballot Screen and the presentation of competing web browsers will express a bias for a Microsoft web browser or any other web browser...."

Do you think that clause is satisfied by a static order of any kind? I don't.

- A

"Do you think that clause is satisfied by a static order of any kind? I don't."

Why not? It's alphabetically ordered; you can't mess with it. Randomising requires an algorithm, which of course, can be tampered with in order to either promote or discredit a specific browser.

Boriss' blog entry is an example of childish frustration instead of an objective, rational view. Let's be realistic: a slight percentage of people will actually change of browsers at the ballot screen. The vast majority will not. People who have used that blue E for all their lives will look for it, even if they have to scroll to Tokyo.

Be happy that Microsoft has been obliged to give the users a choice.

Three things are also worth noting:

1. The word 'Internet' in internet explorer.

2. The amount of blue on the page in colors close to or the same as the ie logo.

3. The wording 'Windows internet explorer' and repetition of internet explorer in the text below the options.

It seems like debate about the topic is heavily influenced by whether people think there should be a ballot at all. I hope that the 'what is a good or fair ballot?' and 'should there be a ballot?' questions are treated separately by the EU.

I'm not sure that randomization will be better.

Why 5 browsers?

Why not more? What happens when a bunch of crapware/malware vendors start making their own browsers?

What if someone installs a browser and they need technical support? Or worse, they downright hate it?

Lets just imagine that one of the browsers completely stinks and 20% of Europe loads it? Or worse, it has no updates and is insecure.

At the end of the day, I cannot help but feel that the bundle isn't the problem is is the monopoly. Accepting the monopoly's proposed solution for the bundle doesn't solve the problem.