Test the new look of addons.mozilla.org!

Add-ons addons.mozilla.org
#41

Previously, this information was displayed in the search result list. Now I must go to the individual page of the extension to see it. This is not very convenient.

Very sorry. Now it’s less convenient for me to find the required extensions. Compatibility is decisive now for me, when there was such a dramatic change in the structure of the browser. While I can not find a replacement for some important extensions for me, I can not update the browser.

Thanks for answers! Anyway, the new design is very nice. :slight_smile:

1 Like
#42

Looks like the way I searched for Add-Ons is no longer valid.

My bookmarked page was: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=created

This provided me with a real-time updated list of the newest extensions in the Mozilla library. This made it easy for me to see what had been created/added since my last visit and – most importantly to the developers, I’m sure – I could explore and try out extensions I might otherwise not even know about.

Now, with this new change, I’m basically where I am with Chrome … if I have a need, I’ll search for an extension. But, I have no way to see what’s new in the library. :frowning:

2 Likes
#43

New (created)

https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/-/20860/17?u=grahamperrin above, please see the second bullet point.

Lists – of multiple add-ons

Vaguely overlapping:

– whilst that issue is strictly focused on the More by … card, the Background section of the opening post includes a thought about listings. tl;dr I’m in two minds, one of which is:

…

  • serendipitous discovery of ‘More … by …’ the same developer

– and the more can be a very good thing, and :+1: …

Personally I’m in two minds but my gut tells me that a majority of users will not enjoy the serendipity, they’ll prefer to be forewarned of incompatibility (prefer no wasted clicks, no unnecessary toing-and-froing).

Disappearance of gold stars

When I made this screen recording, it was not to capture the gold in the new look but here it is, for posterity:

More than simple nostalgia, and this is not resistance to change:

  • the gold stars looked beautiful in the pre-release new look

– much better than shades of grey!

1 Like
#44

OK - that’s a help. Will there be “dates” associated with each extension?

For example, before, I’d like the last extension I saw on the list, as well as the date (in my case, 10-30). Now, there’s no way to know what’s come out since then - especially if the last extension I saw has been deleted …

#45

… probably to be done, but not yet on a milestone. …

#46

That’s fair, but we’re also trying to reduce clutter in the UI and remove non-essential elements. The last updated date made sense because of the compatibility issues legacy add-ons have, but it’s less likely to matter for add-ons built with WebExtensions. As for the Experimental flag, I’m not sure how useful it would be to show it in search results, considering it’s a minor inconvenience to just click through.

You can use this: https://addons.mozilla.org/search/?sort=updated&type=extension

It’s sorted by update date, which isn’t exactly the same, but it’s pretty close.

#47

This idea is good. But maybe you’re a bit ahead with its implementation. The new API appeared recently and many people have not yet updated Firefox or can not update (like me). Information about compatibility is important now. It is much more useful to have access to it immediately from the search result.

2 Likes
#48

My opinion:

Cutting essential information for visitors isn’t “reducing clutter”, though, it’s reducing usability. Putting more and more information behind extra user actions that could be displayed perfectly fine on-screen in a single overview if you didn’t insist on oversizing everything for tablet/phone lowest common denominator use (reducing number of items, adding whitespace, oversized text, big buttons, etc. that can be seen in detail from across the room on any current-size monitor) isn’t building a better site. No desktop user has use for a title that takes up 25% of their screen real estate on a 28" screen.

I’m all for responsive design, but real responsive design does not mean “scaling design over the entire range”. it means adapting to several distinct ranges of screen space with a design that adjusts accordingly, not just in size, but in actual layout and element organization/count/details. If you have more screen space, you fill it with more data, not more filler. :frowning:

4 Likes
#49

This surprises you? If you’re not a very technical person, the opinions of others are very important. Also, a good summary (at the top) makes the description generally redundant. An add-on that requires lots of additional explanation probably won’t work very well for a wide audience.
You probably read too quickly. Again, I ask, are we to believe people would install an addon because a number of anonymous people installed it IN PREFERENCE to knowing what the addon does?!?!

  1. People who aren’t very technical are less likely to install addons and more likely to screw up the browser if they do. By definition, people who look for addons are more technically aware than the general public…who use the web browser that came with their device and might install an addblocker or theme but not much more than that.
  2. “a good summary at the top”…doesn’t create a situation in which number of installs is so influential that the explanation is properly placed “below the fold.”
  3. Layout is a combination of too spacious and too misaligned. Priority of screen placement needs to meet language standards. The harder it is to parse, the less likely it will be used.
  4. This new layout should be a test which the user selects, not the default style of addons.mozilla.org.
    There’s no way to
2 Likes
#50

I’m not yet used to the new AMO design.

So I won’t have many insights here, just something I noticed right now while answering user review : I couldn’t find any permalink to each review? Did I miss this something ?

This is a detail but really handy to keep track of feature requests (let’s be honest, most users won’t bother to create tickets on github/bitbucket/gitlab). I used this intensely to reference users asking for a feature + a link to their demand (mail / review / tweet / other support) and I’ll be missing this tiny feature :frowning:

1 Like
#51

We’re probably bringing this back soon. It can also be useful for review moderation.

1 Like
#52

Dude, thank you SO MUCH for your post. I thought that I am the only one who doesn’t understand the whole “reducing clutter” concept. Cutting or hiding information is totally insane. At least for me responsive design should show as much as possible information REGARDING THE USED SCREEN.

Tiny addition: I wrote some thoughts about the new UI also here: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/10/25/test-new-look-addons-mozilla-org/comment-page-1/#comment-224656

3 Likes
#53

Some suggestions:

  • Make more prominent the link to Go Back to the Old design (for desktop) :wink:

  • Put important info (date of creation / update, version, number of install) just under the addon name (in all part in the site).

  • Re integrate Panels with “Last Reviews”, “Collections where the addon is”, etc…

  • Add arrows for the Screenshot panel (like in the old Design) to move into them without use the larger view

  • Make the order / size of block infos more regular (i don’t like the puzzle effect when i read the info)

  • Reduce font size for addon name and with this place gain put here the rating system (number of rating and rating asking)

  • Color and form are not the problem, if we can easily style the site, but it’s not the case:
    With Waterfox the CSP of the site seems block my good fellow Firefug …

And as many others user , i wait a return of the favorite + Collection functions ( you said before the end of year?)

2 Likes
#54

Good to hear, thanks for your feedback :+1: :slight_smile:

1 Like
#55

I have 2 issues with the new design, as an addon developer.

  1. in an average desktop view, the Description section is way too small and eclipsed. This section is where a lot of important information goes, and now nearly all the content is hidden from view. Users are lazy, and now they overlook my important information even more than before, posting redundant complaints that are already explained and such.
    What really bugs me is that below this section is nothing but empty space, meaning it’s collapsed and eclipsed when there’s no reason for it to be.

  2. the “related links” like support site and support email are too far out of view. I keep getting all sorts of reviews that should have been emails and support tickets instead, because people don’t see the links.

3 Likes
#56

It’s pretty close; but it’s not the same at all.

To wit: What I would do, on a weekly basis, is check which new extensions had been added (not updated; but added). I would start from the newest and work my way down until I saw the one that I’d left off with, the previous week.

In doing this, I encountered new extensions I might never have even thought to look for.

Now, I have to go through many more entries (because the number of updates far exceeds the number of brand new extensions.

So, I haven’t checked in the past few weeks. This means, I’m checking far fewer new extensions (and, rather than taking a chance on something new; I just won’t even see it).

What I’d like to see is a sort option by “newest added” (and, IIRC, this was taken away a few years ago; and brought back (because it was a bad idea back then, too). And, a date of creation (and/or update) with each extension.

In other words: like Simple Machines Forum does it: https://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?action=search;type=0-;sort=submitted;desc

2 Likes
#57

Need AMO to tell me when add-on is installed on my Firefox (like Chrome web store).
When add-on is already installed, don’t show install/add button again.
It should show Installed instead of Add to Firefox.

2 Likes
#58

Why not maintain backward compatibility by at least making the old pages available for users of older versions of the browser? After all, v48 is only a little over one year old…

I mean, who abandons support of software after only one year?

Please consider this…

P.S. Even v16 (which I also still use) is only 2 yrs old…I still use it because it is far more resilient and fast than v48…

1 Like
#59

I prefer the old page of add-on, at least you knew how to navigate. I understand the change but I find it cold and missing so many things.

ex: missing add-ons, is it because no longer supported by the new version of Firefox? also where are all the comments for each add-on ?

ex: I like to install my Xmarks bookmark addon. I click on Bookmark icon and bring me to a page saying there is only 8 add-ons and there is no Xmarks listed. I had to search for it and found it.

If you like to keep the new page add-on that is fine but at least link all your add-ons like the way it was before. Another word you not giving more choices to the user to install what they like, your showing this what we have that it.

1 Like
#60

There’s an issue filed for this.

Agree, though they were also fairly out of view in the old front-end. We will tackle this early next year because it’s a long-standing problem.

Don’t know if this is adequate for you, but you can use the AMO API for this. For example, this query should give you the latest extensions.

We plan to add this soon.

We have ESR for people who want to update less often. Most software, especially Internet-facing software, needs frequent updating in order to stay safe. Those versions of Firefox you’re using are vulnerable to published security bugs that could cause an attacker to compromise your system.

2 Likes