Comments on: A New Look for AMO http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/ Mozilla creative, branding and other random thoughts. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:08:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Tim http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/#comment-6586 Tim Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:47:54 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/#comment-6586 Are you talking aboout "old new" or old? http://www.favbrowser.com/firefox-add-ons-page-upcoming-design-review/ This one? Are you talking aboout “old new” or old?

http://www.favbrowser.com/firefox-add-ons-page-upcoming-design-review/

This one?

]]> By: Glenn http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/#comment-6584 Glenn Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:38:11 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/#comment-6584 Actually, there's a lengthy thread continuing over at MozillaZine about just how much a bunch of users don't like certain aspects of the new AMO: http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=642440 While I certainly appreciate all of the work that goes into AMO, one would have thought that more users would have been canvased about what they want from AMO. As it is, it looks like it was dropped on them/us none too gently. Actually, there’s a lengthy thread continuing over at MozillaZine about just how much a bunch of users don’t like certain aspects of the new AMO:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=642440

While I certainly appreciate all of the work that goes into AMO, one would have thought that more users would have been canvased about what they want from AMO. As it is, it looks like it was dropped on them/us none too gently.

]]> By: Jacques http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/#comment-6583 Jacques Fri, 28 Mar 2008 23:13:11 +0000 http://www.intothefuzz.com/2008/03/28/a-new-look-for-amo/#comment-6583 Actually, I prefer the older version. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425527 Actually, I prefer the older version.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=425527

]]>