Rants and suggestions about the addon site
dasnyderx
I will try to keep this civil, but I'm really livid about this. I
submitted an updated version of my addon, EditPrefs, on 27 Jul (it's
not much of an addon I know, but that's neither here nor there). As
the days passed by, I'd take a look at the status (through 'Manage
Versions') and see it was 'In Sandbox, Pending Review' (or something
to that effect) to see if it's been approved and made public. Days
pass by, then weeks. Nothing. Finally, I start poking/playing around
and make the discovery that changing my status 'back to Sandbox' would
make the new version of the addon visible as an 'experimental' addon.
WTF!! Why the f**k should I change the status back to 'Sandbox'?! I
submitted a new version -- shouldn't it have asked me at some stage in
the submission of the new version that I should change the (or do it
automagically) to 'Sandbox' so that others can see it?! But does it
do that -- No! Was there any notification that this should be done --
No! Was (Is) there any documentation on the process or the necessity
to change the status -- No! Whoever designed the process flow for
this, I'd like to shove a big ... Ok, like I said, I'm a little
pissed off about this.
But, to add insult to injury, when I go to view the status in the
'Change Status', I see I can 'Nominate to make Public' or 'Make
Public' (as I vaguely recall the wording on the two options). There's
zip, nada, NOTHING which indicates what one or the other does or why.
Nominate, NOMINATE! I've added a new version of the addon -- surely
even the most bone-headed person could (or should) make out that I
want to make it public! I didn't upload it to diddle my own todger!
After pondering over this for a moment, I 'Make Public' my addon. But
does it make my addon public -- hell no! It shows only the previous
version! So, after taking the status back to 'the Sandbox', I
'Nominate to make Public'. I'm all aquiver -- what will I win with my
'nomination'? A boat, a week on the Caribbean? No, I have to write
up the changes I made and how I tested it. Two hours of my life
wasted and the public left for 4 weeks without my (minor) update to a
_very_ minor addon. What a total and complete waste! And all because
of a process flow that make a Rube Goldberg (Heath Robinson to our
British friends) machine look like a straightforward operation! I'm
so disgusted that I'm almost willing to throw in the towel on the
whole thing!
So, I would like to propose that someone (or a team of someones) get
off their backsides at that non-profit/mega-dollar-earning corporation/
entity and get some proper documentation up or pointers to some proper
documentation (and don't tell me that developer.mozilla.org [1] or
that dribble at blog.fligtar.com [2] have got it -- 'cause they
don't. The first is basically, submit and wait -- the second has some
nice screenshots but squat all). Secondly, I would seriously suggest
that the team in charge of the addons site grab their cojones, pull
their heads out of their nether regions, and put together a _proper_
process flow. From beginning to end, the developer submits a new (or
upgraded) addon (with accoutrements -- pictures, write ups, etc.),
they're asked if they'd like to submit it and have it show up on
addons with 'experimental' status (with a note about the addon being
in 'the Sandbox' or the 'nut farm' or whatever your sick, little,
twisted hearts want to call it), then if they'd like the new or
upgraded addon to be submitted to the 'editor' for release in a 'non-
experimental' status. Not the byzantine, knock-it-back-to-sandbox-to-
nominate-it, labyrinthine, loop-the-loop that it is now.
If you want to contact me or tell me off (the latter I _really_
couldn't give a f' about), you can contact me at this email address or
(even better) at the same username at yahoo.com.
David
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Submitting_an_add-on_to_AMO
[2] http://blog.fligtar.com/2008/09/18/amo-developer-tools-revamp-part-7-change-status/
Justin Scott
questions and suggestions, keeping in mind that real people read this
stuff, I'll try to address them. I stopped reading this one in the third
paragraph.
Majken Connor
be the most concise (or polite), it's actually a really good walkthrough of
a user's experience of updating an add-on and as well as how it can make
people feel. We may not like it when people say things like "the team in
charge of the addons site grab their cojones..." but if that's how
frustrated the process makes someone we shouldn't just ignore it. He did
afterall make an effort to communicate among the frustration (he even linked
the support pages he found so we'd know which ones he meant).
However, I also agree with Justin (and kudos for actually replying rather
than writing it off). Now that you've got that out, following up with what
he asked for in a non-emotional manner will make it much easier for people
to see and respond to your concerns.
-Lucy
> _______________________________________________
> dev-amo mailing list
> dev...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-amo
>
Eric Jung
email address with which to follow-up. I've cc'd him on this thread for that
reason.
Eric Jung
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I actually really recommend reading it start to finish. While it might not
> be the most concise (or polite), it's actually a really good walkthrough of
> a user's experience of updating an add-on and as well as how it can make
> people feel. We may not like it when people say things like "the team in
> charge of the addons site grab their cojones..." but if that's how
> frustrated the process makes someone we shouldn't just ignore it. He did
> afterall make an effort to communicate among the frustration (he even
> linked
> the support pages he found so we'd know which ones he meant).
>
> However, I also agree with Justin (and kudos for actually replying rather
> than writing it off). Now that you've got that out, following up with what
> he asked for in a non-emotional manner will make it much easier for people
> to see and respond to your concerns.
>
> -Lucy
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Justin Scott <fli...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
dasnyderx
Thanks for reading through and cc'ing me on the list. I am monitoring
the list; I was just so steamed about the ridiculous and byzantine
procedure for getting my (minor) addon published as an update that
I've had to take some time to cool off.
@all
Ok, perhaps I was a bit 'pointed' and 'provocative' in my initial
remarks, but I think the essence of them is still valid. For those
who didn't (or wouldn't or couldn't) make it through the original
post, here it is in simple, numbered form:
1) The discongruity between the 'Versions and Files' status message
and the necessity of changing the addon's status back to 'sandbox' is
misleading.
2) The consequences of choosing one or the other of the options
visible when the status of the (updated) addon was changed to
'Sandbox' are not readily apparent.
3) The 'Developer Tools' lacks documentation about the submission/
upgrade procedure.
Fuller explanations of the above points are as follows:
1) The status of my addons on the 'Version and Files' page when I
submitted the update was, 'In Sandbox; pending review' (as far as I
recall). If it was _already_ 'In Sandbox', why did I have to change
the status to Sandbox? The status message of the update in 'Versions
and Files' is therefore incorrect and misleading -- it should have
been something like (if it is to remain a message), 'Pending
submission to Sandbox' or (even better) 'Awaiting status change to
Sandbox'. A better course-of-action would have been to move the 'Move
to Sandbox' button from 'Change Status' to 'Versions and Files'. The
addition of 'pending review' implies that the addon is about to or is
undergoing review when nothing of the sort is taking place and only
adds to (at least, my) confusion.
This leads to me to amorphous nature of aspects of an addon's
'Developer Tools' pages to the version the changes made on those pages
apply to. For example, it would have helped me a lot if the 'Change
Status' page had indicated that moving the addon to the Sandbox would
have applied to the latest version and not the addon in general (as
the blurb next to the 'Move to Sandbox' reads now). The 'Edit Add-on'
page has the same problem. This version-amorphous nature is carried
through to the 'Developer Tools' initial page.
In addition, with a more explicit version-centered view of the addon,
the 'Edit Add-on' and 'Change Status' links when on the 'Versions and
Files' page could be dropped since changing status and editing the
addon would be done through the 'Versions and Files' present on the
page.
2) Assuming my suggestion for a 'version-centered' view of addons is
not acceptable, the blurbs next to the 'Nominate to make Public' and
'Make Public' after moving an addon to the Sandbox need to be
clarified. The former label and blurb imply some sort of electoral
process (which is unexplained) and the latter label and blurb doesn't
differentiate between making public the last approved version and a
newly submitted version. It would be clearer to the submitter which
choice to make if the choices were (for example):
[ Submit for review ] Submit version, yy.yy.yy, for editorial
review and public release
[ Make last approved version public ] Make version, xx.xx.xx,
public again.
However, getting to the above (clarified) choices is made more
difficult without clarifying _why_ the developer should change the
status to Sandbox on the initial 'Change Status' page. So, I would
suggest that a blurb under the 'Add-on Status' on the initial 'Change
Status' page read something like:
Version xx.xx.xx:
[X] Public
Version yy.yy.yy:
[X] Submitted
[ ] Moved to Sandbox for review
[ ] Public
This would clarify the next step which the developer should take and
why they should. With the use of the suggested 'Submit for review'
and 'Make...' button text changes, the process would be much clearer.
BTW, the employment of the 'Are you sure?' pages (especially with the
nebulous point when going to 'Change Status') makes the developer (or,
at least, me) feel like this is a permanent and irrevokable choice.
For me, I was _very_ reluctant to proceed past this page when I
initially submitted my addon. This is why (coupled with the
misleading 'Version and Files' status message and uncertainty about
why I should change the status to Sandbox) I didn't do so until a
month after my upgraded version submission.
3) While I have seen messages here and on one or two blogs about doing
up some documentation on the submission process, since there is no
guidance on the process, it makes the whole process extremely
frustrating (witness my initial correspondence). I'm not talking
about step-by-step, 'handholding' documentation, just something as
simple as:
Submission process:
1) Add a 'New Version' in 'Versions and Files' of the addon.
2) 'Change Status' to move the addon to the Sandbox in order to
submit for review by editors.
Something as simple as this would have connected the dots for me
instead of having to fumble around with every option possible (as I
had to do) before I discovered what I should do in order to get my
upgrade reviewed and made public.
With no clear guideposts (incorrect 'V&F' status message, lack of
reasons for moving an addon to Sandbox), process outlines/prompts, or
other helpful information, while the addon site looks like a million
bucks it extremely frustrating experience to try and work though.
David
On Aug 29, 7:58 pm, Eric Jung <eric.j...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's doubtful he's monitoring the list and our replies since he specified an
> email address with which to follow-up. I've cc'd him on this thread for that
> reason.
>
> Eric Jung
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I actually really recommend reading it start to finish. While it might not
> > be the most concise (or polite), it's actually a really good walkthrough of
> > a user's experience of updating an add-on and as well as how it can make
> > people feel. We may not like it when people say things like "the team in
> > charge of the addons site grab their cojones..." but if that's how
> > frustrated the process makes someone we shouldn't just ignore it. He did
> > afterall make an effort to communicate among the frustration (he even
> > linked
> > the support pages he found so we'd know which ones he meant).
>
> > However, I also agree with Justin (and kudos for actually replying rather
> > than writing it off). Now that you've got that out, following up with what
> > he asked for in a non-emotional manner will make it much easier for people
> > to see and respond to your concerns.
>
> > -Lucy
>
> >http://blog.fligtar.com/2008/09/18/amo-developer-tools-revamp-part-7-...
>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dev-amo mailing list
> > > dev-...@lists.mozilla.org
> > >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-amo
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev-amo mailing list
> > dev-...@lists.mozilla.org
> >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-amo
Justin Scott
concerns but I really can't. Can you explain why you wanted to move your
add-on to the sandbox?
I think you might be confused about the purpose of the sandbox. This
might help: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/sandbox
This might help as well:
https://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/policies/reviews
Justin
dillinger
> I read your post a couple times trying to understand some of your
> concerns but I really can't. Can you explain why you wanted to move your
> add-on to the sandbox?
>
> I think you might be confused about the purpose of the sandbox. This
> might help: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/sandbox
>
> This might help as well:
> https://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/policies/reviews
>
> Justin
Moving an add-on back to the sandbox makes the last version of the
add-on visible on the add-on's main page. Otherwise, with a released
add-on, the latest, not yet approved, version is hidden behind the "View
Older Versions" link at the bottom of the page.
Moving that link a bit more to the top and changing it to "View Other
Versions" or maybe adding a link "View Beta Versions" or "Beta Version
Available" would solve this problem, I think.
Michel
Justin Scott
Oh. Yes, sandboxed add-ons don't have to be reviewed before they are
displayed, but they also don't push out updates to users that have
installed the add-on and users have to check a box to install them.
As your add-on was public before, the "In Sandbox; Pending Review"
status is correct and is the default for updates to public add-ons. Once
the add-on has been approved it will appear on the add-on's main page
and push out the update to everyone with the old version installed.
Moving your add-on back to the sandbox makes it as though an editor has
never reviewed your add-on.
Justin
dillinger
I know all of this, moving it back to the sandbox probably also stops it
from ever being reviewed.
I'm just trying to understand why it is used as a workaround for slow
updating.
Michel
dasnyderx
> I read your post a couple times trying to understand some of your
> concerns but I really can't. Can you explain why you wanted to move your
> add-on to the sandbox?
>
> I think you might be confused about the purpose of the sandbox. This
> might help:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/sandbox
>
>
> read more »
@Justin,
Thank you for the links. These would have been _extremely_ helpful
with regards to my upgrade submission for my (minor) addon (especially
the first link). However, I am unable to discern _how_ a lay person
(like me) could have turned up a such document (especially the first
link). Since there is no breadcrumb trail on the 'Sandbox Review'
page (another thing that irritates me about navigating around the
Mozilla site, but that's another matter), I can't see how I could have
reasonably arrived at the page. And while the flow is understandable,
it doesn't conform to my experience. In essence, the process I had to
follow was:
Add-on submitted -> New Add-on -> no -> Trusted Add-on? -> no ->
Update to Public Add-on -> yes -> Editor review (supposedly)
And at this point it sat for a month after submission. So, in
frustration at the lack of progress, I took the following path:
Update to Public Add-on -> no -> Sandbox -> Author nominates non-
public add-on -> Editor Review -> pass -> Public
I didn't _want_ to move my addon to the Sandbox. However, this was
the only way that I could, 1) get the addon upgrade to show up as
being _in_ the Sandbox and being experimental on the EditPrefs page
[1], and 2) get my addon reviewed. So, /before/ I moved it to
Sandbox, there was no indication (except on the V&F page) there was an
upgrade to the addon, and it didn't get reviewed.
However, the first process I describe above, after the steps after
'New Add-on' was opaque to me. After the submission, I saw no queue
reporting where (if anywhere) my upgraded addon was in-line for
review. And, in an additional slap-in-the-face, after sitting
somewhere 'awaiting review' for a month, two or three days after
(counter-intuitively) moving the addon to the Sandbox, then
'nominating to make public', the addon got approved! So, did I jump
the queue? Possibly. Is the flow path illustration on the 'Sandbox
Review System' page conform to my experience? No, and, as far as I'm
concerned, if I hadn't moved the addon to 'Sandbox', it'd still be 'In
Sandbox; awaiting review'! From the V&F page, there was the message
that the upgrade _was_ in Sandbox. That's why I was so confused and
frustrated when I had to move the addon _to_ the Sandbox in order to
get the addon to show up as experimental on the EditPrefs page.
So, in essence, I didn't want to move my addon to the Sandbox, but
that's the only way my addon got shown as having an experimental
(i.e., new) version and getting it reviewed. Hope that clears up your
confusion on my confusion.
Regards,
David
dasnyderx
> On 20/09/09 06:27, Justin Scott wrote:
>
> > I read your post a couple times trying to understand some of your
> > concerns but I really can't. Can you explain why you wanted to move your
> > add-on to the sandbox?
>
> > I think you might be confused about the purpose of the sandbox. This
> > might help:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/sandbox
>
> > This might help as well:
>
> > Justin
>
> Moving an add-on back to the sandbox makes the last version of the
> add-on visible on the add-on's main page. Otherwise, with a released
> add-on, the latest, not yet approved, version is hidden behind the "View
> Older Versions" link at the bottom of the page.
> Moving that link a bit more to the top and changing it to "View Other
> Versions" or maybe adding a link "View Beta Versions" or "Beta Version
> Available" would solve this problem, I think.
>
> Michel
Yes, this would have assuaged my frustration at the lack of any
indication that a new version was available. As regards the
experimental (i.e., upgraded) version being visible on the 'View Other
Versions', I didn't see any link of the sort. Perhaps I was mentally
overlaying the standard link text of 'View Older Versions' on the
'View Other Versions' link at the bottom of the page. But, as I
recall, there wasn't any 'View Other Versions' link, and clicking on
the 'View Older Versions' link (whether it actually read 'View Other
Versions' or not) displayed no indication of the experimental (i.e.,
upgraded) addon.
In my experience, after submission of my upgraded addon, there was no
indication whatsoever on the EditPrefs page of _any_ newer version.
So, any attempt to clear this up would be appreciated.
Regards,
David
dasnyderx
> dillinger wrote:
> > On 20/09/09 06:27, Justin Scott wrote:
> >> I read your post a couple times trying to understand some of your
> >> concerns but I really can't. Can you explain why you wanted to move your
> >> add-on to the sandbox?
>
> >> I think you might be confused about the purpose of the sandbox. This
> >> might help:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/sandbox
>
> >> This might help as well:
>
> >> Justin
>
> > Moving an add-on back to the sandbox makes the last version of the
> > add-on visible on the add-on's main page. Otherwise, with a released
> > add-on, the latest, not yet approved, version is hidden behind the "View
> > Older Versions" link at the bottom of the page.
> > Moving that link a bit more to the top and changing it to "View Other
> > Versions" or maybe adding a link "View Beta Versions" or "Beta Version
> > Available" would solve this problem, I think.
>
> > Michel
>
> Oh. Yes, sandboxed add-ons don't have to be reviewed before they are
> displayed, but they also don't push out updates to users that have
> installed the add-on and users have to check a box to install them.
>
> As your add-on was public before, the "In Sandbox; Pending Review"
> status is correct and is the default for updates to public add-ons. Once
> the add-on has been approved it will appear on the add-on's main page
> and push out the update to everyone with the old version installed.
>
> Moving your add-on back to the sandbox makes it as though an editor has
> never reviewed your add-on.
>
> Justin
Justin,
You are most probably correct that the status of 'In Sandbox; Pending
Review' is the way it's supposed to go. However, in my experience, my
addon was sitting in this status for a month (approximately) and no
progress was made (or none that I could fathom) on getting it reviewed
(if at all). So, I moved the addon to the Sandbox (which it was
reported as being in for a month) and finally got somewhere with it
showing up as having a new version and (finally) getting it reviewed.
Perhaps I stepped out of the 'proper' path, but without any apparent
progress (or any apparent visibility to a new version) with regards to
the addon, I was successful in getting my upgraded addon posted as
being made public. As far as my experience is concerned, the whole
'In Sandbox; Pending Review' was, at best, a misnomer, at worst, a
flat out 'terminological inexactitude' (to use the great Winston
Churchill phrase). From my standpoint, while the process I was
'unconventional' (and frustrating), it achieved the objective.
Regards,
David
dasnyderx
> On 23/09/09 20:03, Justin Scott wrote:
>
>
>
> > dillinger wrote:
> >> On 20/09/09 06:27, Justin Scott wrote:
> >>> I read your post a couple times trying to understand some of your
> >>> concerns but I really can't. Can you explain why you wanted to move your
> >>> add-on to the sandbox?
>
> >>> I think you might be confused about the purpose of the sandbox. This
> >>> might help:https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pages/sandbox
>
> >>> This might help as well:
>
> >>> Justin
>
> >> Moving an add-on back to the sandbox makes the last version of the
> >> add-on visible on the add-on's main page. Otherwise, with a released
> >> add-on, the latest, not yet approved, version is hidden behind the "View
> >> Older Versions" link at the bottom of the page.
> >> Moving that link a bit more to the top and changing it to "View Other
> >> Versions" or maybe adding a link "View Beta Versions" or "Beta Version
> >> Available" would solve this problem, I think.
>
> >> Michel
>
> > Oh. Yes, sandboxed add-ons don't have to be reviewed before they are
> > displayed, but they also don't push out updates to users that have
> > installed the add-on and users have to check a box to install them.
>
> > As your add-on was public before, the "In Sandbox; Pending Review"
> > status is correct and is the default for updates to public add-ons. Once
> > the add-on has been approved it will appear on the add-on's main page
> > and push out the update to everyone with the old version installed.
>
> > Moving your add-on back to the sandbox makes it as though an editor has
> > never reviewed your add-on.
>
> > Justin
>
> I know all of this, moving it back to the sandbox probably also stops it
> from ever being reviewed.
> I'm just trying to understand why it is used as a workaround for slow
> updating.
>
> Michel
Michel,
As far as I'm concerned, after having had my addon showing as 'In
Sandbox; Pending Review' according to the V&F page for a month with no
visibility on any progress or any sign of review (or possibility of
the same), the only forward progress I was able to make was by moving
the addon to the Sandbox (which the V&F page reported it was already
in) and nominating it to be made public. This might have 'stop[ped]
it from ever being reviewed', but the process I was finally able to
cobble together _finally_ got the upgrade reviewed. So, from that
standpoint, it was successful. On the other hand, it was _extremely_
frustrating to 1) have my upgrade sitting in a 'pending review' state
for a month; 2) not seeing any sign of any new version visible on the
addon page; 3) having to move the addon to the Sandbox when it was
reported as being there; and 4) not having any documentation on what
the process was.
Regards,
David