AMO 3.2 Preview

AMO has a new look and we need your help to polish it off. Please tell us what you think!

Here are some screenshots:

Rec vs. ExpExperimental close-upDev StatsFeatured add-onReviewsApp ChooserDeveloper CP Nav

Aside from a new look, here are few highlights in AMO 3.2:

What we’d like to know:

  • Does the reskin help you find what you need quicker?
  • Does the absence of “types” confuse things? (plugins, search plugins, themes, extensions)
  • What should we do to make things better/easier to use for you?

Keep in mind that we are still ironing out some wrinkles. For more information:

Thanks, and looking forward to hearing from everyone.

Categories: AMO

16 responses

  1. lago wrote on :

    This is not a big deal, but the arrow on “other applications” link (pointing to the right, towards the edge of the page) creates the impression that clicking it will take the user to another webpage. This, in turn, creates the impression that other applications are being neglected (no direct link to their extensions on the main page).

  2. Philip Chee wrote on :

    When SeaMonkey is the application selected, the install buttons say “Add to Firefox”, not SeaMonkey.


  3. David Naylor wrote on :

    Hmm… I’m a bit sceptical to removing the “types”.

    Finding themes would be a lot easier if there were a category named “Themes”. As it is now they are pretty well hidden.

    Also, if you have plugins there somewhere I for one can’t work out where to look for them.

    Also, I think search engines need a category of their own. Or make them more discoverable some other way.

    All in all: Merging the “types” with all extensions isn’t a good idea in my eyes.

  4. Jacques wrote on :

    Hi know that a lot of time and hours is spent on improving things. But this preview goes in the completly wrong direction.

    We must still be able to find quickly “Extensions” and “Themes”. So the column on the left should be part of an accordeon widget at minimum.

    The other biggest mistake on this preview in the missing NEW extensions or NEW themes links. We need a page for Extension and Themes classified by date.

    So my suggestion is to stick with the current AMO. The preview feels like version 0.32 while the current version looks like version 10.0.

  5. Tony wrote on :

    The page,
    looks messed up in IE7

  6. Michael Lefevre wrote on :

    Just a couple of minor things…

    Maybe I missed something, but I was trying to search for something, so I typed a word in the search box, grabbed the mouse, clicked the drop down to select a category, and then…. moused around a bit looking for a “search” button to click. I didn’t find one, so I clicked back in the text field and hit enter…

    It’s pretty odd to have a form that you can’t submit by clicking a button, and it feels broken when you are using the mouse to select from a drop-down.

    The other thing was the alt text on preview images – while the images are loading, the text shows up and overlaps, which looks clunky. I don’t see the point in having generic alt text anyway. As I understand things, it would actually be better for users with screen readers or whatever to leave that alt text blank. The name is there anyway – the alt text doesn’t add anything.

    Removing the images gives a list like:

    Adblock Plus
    [Preview image of Adblock Plus]
    by Wladimir Palant
    Adblock Plus does blah blah blah…

    Good alt text for that image would be “Screenshot showing a context menu over a image in a web page with an option to block it”, but that’s probably not feasible. “Preview image of [name]” isn’t alternative content, it’s a title which is useless if you cannot also see the image – belongs in a title tag, not an alt tag.

    Same thing applies to the Firefox logo having alt text of “Firefox Add-ons” – the words are there as text anyway, so if you replace the image with the alt text, you just get “Firefox Add-ons Firefox Add-ons” as the heading.

    I’m sure I could have made the same point in less words… aside from those nits, looks good to me after a quick look.

  7. Ngamer01 wrote on :

    Yeah, a merging of all add-ons will make things confusing. Extensions, Themes, Plug-Ins, and Search Engines should all be separate categories.

    Maybe you can redo the front page’s middle section (since the new AMO version plans 3 column content):
    [Extension Drop-Down] [Theme Drop-Down]
    —- Random Extension—Random Theme —-

    “-” is empty space.

    [Extension Drop Down] is a drop down menu with options to go to the Browse Extensions page or jump directly to an extension category.

    [Theme Drop Down] is a drop down menu with options to go to the Browse Themes page or jump directly to a theme category.

    Random Extension just displays a random recommended extension’s information.

    Random Theme just displays a random recommended theme’s information.

    Plugins, Search Engines, and Dictionaries will all be Extension categories. After all, they extend Firefox right? 😉

    Let the right column display all important info about recommended add-ons (extensions and themes) and the most popular add-ons (extensions and themes).

    The Browse Extensions and Browse Themes pages would work as the same as the main page, but you have 2 recommended extensions/themes displayed at random with the important information about recommended extensions/themes in the right column. Those are my two cents.

    If this idea needs to go in Bugzilla instead, let me know or file it on my behalf. 😉

  8. Ray Murphy wrote on :

    I filed the following bugs as suggestions/recommendations for the new AMO 3.2:

    Bug 417784 – aka AMO Beta: Cannot Change Email On User Account Editing Page

    Bug 417787 – aka AMO Beta: Add-on Search Should Include Product Compatibility

  9. William Swanson wrote on :

    There is no indication of which Firefox version the add-ons are compatible with. I would expect to find this information at least in the “Advanced Details” widget, if nowhere else.

  10. Jesse Ruderman wrote on :

    “***** by Deathgleaner on December 3, 2007 (rated 9)”

    What is the “rated 9”? Is that the site’s rating of the reviewer rather than the reviewer’s rating of the extension? If so, that’s confusing.

  11. Jose Cedeno wrote on :

    I like the new look and feel of the addons website. I love the huge search box in the top. It looks nice and clean, and love the dropdown as well.

    What I found confusing:
    * In the addons manager in ff3b3 I found 4 tabs: get addons, extensions, themes and plugins. It’s confusing that when I go to the addons website I don’t see a theme section when the addons manager clearly has a section for it.
    * What about if I want to find the new theme for mac? There’s no theme option in the dropdown to limit my search.
    * I love the theme and designs that you guys come up with, but I think that is a little too often. How frequently do people visit the addons website? It feels like everytime there’s a new cool and better design. Sometimes it takes me a few extra seconds or steps to figure out where the option that I want is located with the new design

    What I’d recommend:
    * Why not make custom recommendations? I’m visiting the addons website with mozilla, why not recommend me other addons that are relevant to me? Can’t you ask firefox, what themes or addons this firefox user likes, and in return display things that I’m most likely to be interested on?
    * What about putting surveys in the actual addons website to gather more information from the website visitors instead of only gathering information from people that look at blogs like this one?

  12. V.Kamerrer wrote on :

    That we are really need – is ability to search extensions according to version compatibility options.
    See, i use FF 3.0, so then i search themes i really don’t need themes for FF 2.0. At this moment there is no way to set target application version for browsing and searching extensions.

  13. Jason McLaughlin wrote on :

    Not being terribly familiar with the guidelines for bug filing, I’ll chime in here as well!

    I definitely agree that add-ons need to be accessible by type, not lumped in together (except maybe by user choice). To that end, I too would suggest links for each type – ideally in the left column, above Categories, and including an “All” option which would be the default page. Then I’d also suggest an addition to the search form: [Search for add-ons] of type [any] within [all categories].

    On a results page, and even on an individual add-on’s page, there’s no indication of the last time it was updated. How about an h4.updated after and

    Also on results pages, I noticed a few problems with p.install-button. First, woudn’t it be more accurate to use a “+” rather than a down arrow next to “Add to ______”? Second, the button floats above long add-on names, obscuring part of the text. Third, and less obvious at first glance, there’s a problem with platform-specificity. Take “Firefox Companion for eBay” for example. It says it’s NOT compatible with OS X, but somehow that gets translated into ONLY compatible with OS X.

    Speaking of platform-specificity, a way to find only those add-ons which are compatible with your platform would indeed be quite welcome.

    Lastly, this may not be an AMO problem, but the warning in the add-on installation dialog is poorly worded. It currently says, “Only install add-ons from authors whom you trust.” Technically correct grammar, but awkward. Better to get rid of “whom.” Also, wouldn’t “people” or even “websites” be more friendly and fitting than “authors”? Maybe not; just a thought. ^_^

    Anyhow, it’s looking good overall! I look forward to using the new layout once functionality is fully updated as well.

  14. JP wrote on :

    Missing version information and a missing feature to specify which FF version and OS the addons should be compatible with was what I found most irritating about the old site and it is a pity that this is still not working.

    Looks is not everything. People want to actually use that site, not just look at it.

  15. Aaron Strontsman wrote on :

    I’m happy that you’ve finally got rid of the motorbike. That was long overdue since the bike doesn’t have much to do with web browsing, mailing, or calendaring. I also like that there is such a variety of possible numbers of columns (one to four), perfectly suited to the need of the respective page.
    The Rate-it item on the detail pages is nicely placed and certainly more convenient to use than the old rating design.
    However, I don’t like that there is so much green in the page. That just doesn’t fit into the rest of Mozilla’s background colour concept: = blue; = dark blue / gradient; Mozilla products = light blue, sometimes mixed with orange-red; Mozilla downloads = green. AMO, although being a .org page today is visually integrated into the page, which is weird. Since the .com site is aimed at consumers and AMO is, too, that seems logical, despite the fact that in this case the address should have been changed to AMC.
    The new design looks visually integrated with none of the pages (but also links back to
    Anyway, the green … I think there should either be a blue background or none at all for menu and search. Green just sticks out too much, especially the type of green you have chosen.
    I also think that you waste lots of space with font sizes you chose for the menu and the search bar. This is the complete opposite of the last design that used tiny fonts for everything. Is there nothing in between?
    Menu and search bar use Verdana, rest of the page is in Arial/Helvetica and Trebuchet. Why not apply Arial to menu and search bar, too?
    Between the menu items there is a lot of free space, thus one has to scroll to see the entire menu. That’s especially obvious and ugly when you’re on a page with a flip-out menu. (By the way: what about a short flip-out animation?)
    The “other applications” menu is incosistently placed: sometimes it’s on the second line of the header text, sometimes it’s on the first.

    Now, to make my comment even longer… Why didn’t you try to establish a “Mozilla Add-ons” brand? It’s still always Firefox add-ons, Thunderbird add-ons, etc. It’s no wonder that the term “Mozilla” today is either not recognised or directly connected to “Firefox company” when you (seem to) focus so exclusively on this single product ( always lands you on its Firefox page first; SUMO is still Firefox-only). You could call it “Mozilla Add-ons: Firefox” or something the like and use a puzzle piece or maybe a cardboard package as a logo instead of using the respective application icon.

  16. Thomas Bertels wrote on :

    The comments titles have disappeared 🙁
    They’re really helpfull though, see the difference with ( and without (

    It would also be really useful to be able to filter by available locales.

    And why not be able to show all the addons with descriptions by names ?