Latest revision as of 01:57, 22 April 2008

preview.addons.mozilla.org

This page is for consolidation of the feedback on the new AMO Beta. If you're more comfortable filing bugs, you're welcome to do that instead.

Accessibility

Changing text size results in bad layout. Ways to correct this: #otherAlso should specify min-width rather than width; class .addon has a background image of addon-tr.png - the vertical size of this image is not very big, so it quickly results in missing borders when text size is increased a fraction.
Unfortunately #otherAlso has been taken out of the flow and is absolutely positioned resulting in it overlapping other content at non-default text sizes.

These sort of problems also tend to present themselves at higher DPI - have you tested at 120dpi?

SEO

The title "Firefox Addons" should be an H1, not an H2 so that search engines will pick it up. At the moment, the H1 is an image saying "mozilla" - not really something a search engine would find... Also, I'm not sure why font sizes and font colors are specified for that H1 given that it only contains an image.
A meta description would give a search engine something to pull off the page.

Overflow

Even at normal font size, URLs in the body text of the addon description break out of the .addon class container. This looks bad. You could give the addon class a overflow:hidden but that's usually unsatisfactory. Gecko still doesn't implement text-overflow:ellipsis (bug #312156) or word-wrap (bug #99457) so the only other option is to inject (or equivalent numeric entity) at alternate characters in long strings as chatzilla does. --Rbirkby 11:06, 15 February 2008 (PST)

The "Other applications" control partially obscures "My account" and "Logout".

Reviews

It's rather unobvious that adding a rating/review for an extension requires you to be logged in. I'd highly recommend adding a one-line note above the submit button for not-logged in users saying something like "requires registration", or you'll risk pissing off would be commenters who don't want to go through the trouble of registering yet another account.

Firefox/OS Version

It seems that there is no simple way to specify the Firefox version and OS the extensions shown should be compatible with. Nor is this information shown anywhere in the lists. This results in the rather frustrating situation that one might have to browse through a long list of extensions only to detect when trying to install the extension that it is not compatible with your browser. This problem gets even worse if somebody just wants to download an extension for a different browser (e.g. when an administrator running Linux prepares software and extensions for a Windows installation).

Especially for the launch of Firefox 3.0 this will be important as otherwise people will have too much difficulty in finding FF3.0 enabled extensions/themes.

Advanced search

There should be some form that allows a more advanced search, especially the specification of a FF version and/or OS that the addon must be compatible with. Other advanced search features should be an option to exclude or include "experimental" addons or limit the extensions to those of specific authors.

Usability / UI revisions

People who are used to the term "themes" (existing users) are having difficulty finding them in the current hierarchy.
- Potential solution: Finish changing the name of the category from "Interface Customizations" to "Themes & Appearance"
There's inconsistency between what down-arrows mean on menu headers (there's a drop-down menu available here) vs. what they mean on "Add to Firefox" buttons (up for debate! "down"load?)
- Potential solution: remove the down arrow from the "Add to Firefox" buttons. The arrow doesn't really have much useful semantic meaning -- it doesn't really convey "add to firefox" -- so it's really just clutter.
The issue of not knowing whether a given add-on is compatible with your version of Firefox/other application is a big deal
Listing stuff from the sandbox (experimental) by default is not useful, since even if the person goes to the trouble of creating an account in order to access it there is no useful status information such as when it was created, how long its been in a queue or what version it is compatible with. Why not only list experimental add-ons if the person is logged in?
Clicking on a category button such as "security and privacy" for Thunderbird add-ons gives three add-ons, in vertical columns. This is hard to read, and unexpected. Its also hard to browse all of the entries for this category since thats not one of the choices in the "see all privacy and security" box. Whats wrong with alphabetical sorting as a choice? If nothing else sometimes a user has a rough idea of the name and wants to try to find it via browsing rather than searching.
If the user is navigating add-ons or themes for a specific application only add-ons and themes for that application should be shown. For example, in the Thunderbird add-ons privacy and security category the first page shows the Hip Hop Radio Extension for Firefox. Thats experimental and Firefox specific.
If I search for the Lightning extension while running Firefox under Linux it has a "Download Now (Windows)" button for that extension. This is confusing as all of the other add-ons have "Download Now" and it choose the wrong platform when it tried to be helpful. If I click on the entry it shows separate download links for each platform. However, if I look at some other extension such as ltnPlus it uses "Download Now" both in the summary and when I click on the entry. Behavior needs to be more consistent and predictable.
There should be more consistency in categories among the different products. Firefox has interface customizations and toolbars, which are generic enough they would be useful in Thunderbird and probably other applications. Firefox has "other" while Thunderbird has "miscellaneous", whats the difference? Firefox has "photos, music and media" while SeaMonkey has "photos and media", why are they different?
Looking at the number of categories (14 for firefox, 11 for SeaMonkey, 6 for Thunderbird, 3 for sunbird) one gets the impression some applications are not first class citizens. You would expect SeaMonkey to have the same categories (or more since its really a superset) as Firefox. Obvious categories such as Spam are missing for Thunderbird and SeaMonkey.
Other web sites (for example Amazon) adapt recommendations for the user, and let you provide feedback to tailor the recommendations. If I look at the Firefox recommendations the first item is Zotero, something for automatic capture of citation information from web pages. Thats not exactly mainstream :) It has 5 reviews and 13,126 downloads, which doesn't sound like much. Its not one of the "featured" add-ons. Its not obvious why it was chosen, or that its tailored for me.
There isn't any information to help deal with abandoned add-ons. For example, Frank DiLecce has written a lot of popular extensions. His web site is long gone, he is no longer using the mozillaZine forums, he hasn't updated his extensions for years, and nobody has been able to contact him for years. Its not clear whats the legal status of his extensions, which prevents anybody from taking over their maintenance.
Searching for Noia (for the Noia themes) returns three entries. Two of them have identical names - Noia 2.0 eXtreme. You have to click on each entry to see that one is version 2.36 and one is version 3.0. That information should have been shown on the entry (the summary).
Many add-ons require the user to figure out how to bypass the version check. If the add-on causes problems they sometimes need to use safe mode to let them access the menu to disable or uninstall the add-on. This information isn't available in the applications help. It would help if the web site provided some generic installation help for add-ons, even if all they did was provide links to a few SUMO and mozillaZine KB articles.
The web page for Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer 2.0.43 displays three images (under "More Images") as three vertical lines. If you try to display any of them you get an error message about it can not be displayed because it contains errors.
The date of release for addons and themes should be visible when browsing.

Search Results Page

The SRP should support sorting and filtering of the search results, similar to the sorting options already available on the "browse extension by category" page. Filtering can filter results by specific product/version/locale ... See bug 401136[1] for details.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-= Alpha Feedback - http://preview.addons.mozilla.org =
+= Beta Feedback - http://preview.addons.mozilla.org =
-This page is for consolidation of the feedback on the new AMO Alpha.  If you're more comfortable filing bugs, you're [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=addons.mozilla.org&version=3.0 welcome to do that] instead.
+This page is for consolidation of the feedback on the new AMO Beta.  If you're more comfortable filing bugs, you're [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=addons.mozilla.org&version=3.2 welcome to do that] instead.
-See also the [http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/01/02/amo-3.0-alpha-public-preview/ announcement] on the Mozilla webdev blog.
+== Accessibility ==
+* Changing text size results in bad layout. Ways to correct this: #otherAlso should specify min-width rather than width; class .addon has a background image of addon-tr.png - the vertical size of this image is not very big, so it quickly results in missing borders when text size is increased a fraction.
+* Unfortunately #otherAlso has been taken out of the flow and is absolutely positioned resulting in it overlapping other content at non-default text sizes.
-The feedback (bugs, suggestions) that we fixed/dealt with were moved to a [[Update:Remora Feedback/Alpha Feedback Fixed|reference page]].
+These sort of problems also tend to present themselves at higher DPI - have you tested at 120dpi?
-== fligtar's comments ==
+== SEO ==
-I like the overall look, but I have a few comments about certain aspects:
+* The title "Firefox Addons" should be an H1, not an H2 so that search engines will pick it up. At the moment, the H1 is an image saying "mozilla" - not really something a search engine would find... Also, I'm not sure why font sizes and font colors are specified for that H1 given that it only contains an image.
-* The discussion header/footer is noticeably different.
+* A meta description would give a search engine something to pull off the page.
-* Discussions show a CakePHP favicon for me
-* [http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/discussions/comments.php?DiscussionID=1&page=1#Item_0 This] may be a vanilla bug, not sure: "Comment by  made 1 day ago days ago"
-** That was a l10n bug and is likely to be still present in different languages due to a l10n tag inconsistency in the vanilla code. I fixed it in English and German, though. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 18:44, 16 January 2007 (PST)
-* 08:27 <@fligtar|afk> i don't feel like going to the wiki right now, but the user info page is missing the author's name in 3 places, namely "User info for" and "Add-ons by" and the page title
-** The user info page is not missing anything: The nickname is displayed in the places you mentioned. (Just like amo v2 did). Are you suggesting to use the full name instead? --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 13:56, 18 January 2007 (PST)
-== clouserw's comments ==
+== Overflow ==
-* Old URLs should redirect into the new format so we don't get 404s ([https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362526 bug 362526])
+Even at normal font size, URLs in the body text of the addon description break out of the .addon class container. This looks bad. You could give the addon class a overflow:hidden but that's usually unsatisfactory. Gecko still doesn't implement text-overflow:ellipsis (bug #312156) or word-wrap (bug #99457) so the only other option is to inject <wbr> (or equivalent numeric entity) at alternate characters in long strings as chatzilla does.
-* Pages should validate
+--[[User:Rbirkby|Rbirkby]] 11:06, 15 February 2008 (PST)
-* Discussions can be started that aren't related to an addon (just click "discussions" in the header, then start a new topic)
-* The "More..." link under "Popular Extensions" on the browse page goes nowhere.
-* Since search engines are addons now, if you type a search engine id into the URL, you get a really ugly display page
-== wenzel's comments ==
+The "Other applications" control partially obscures "My account" and "Logout".
-* Browse Category page has a "more" link for new and updated add-ons which leads to the new add-ons RSS feed (atm it's even a 404); it should maybe lead to a new page showing the new add-ons for this category only.
-* Browse Add-ons page could use category specific RSS feeds.
-* Search algorithm is improvable: The binary matching creates many hits with the same score in spite of their obviously different relevance.
-* "find similar add-ons" sometimes shows different categories with the same name?  ([http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/addons/display/398 example])
-== xeen's comments ==
+== Reviews ==
-* Extension summaries should be limited to a certain length so that we don't have 2 pages description when browsing extensions. I kind-of see this when looking at the extension's page where the same description appears twice. Is this supposed to be "long" and "short" description?
+It's rather unobvious that adding a rating/review for an extension requires you to be logged in. I'd highly recommend adding a one-line note above the submit button for not-logged in users saying something like "requires registration", or you'll risk pissing off would be commenters who don't want to go through the trouble of registering yet another account.
-** Yes, it is: That it's the same text is an import issue from amo v2; in the future, the first text will be a very short tagline, and the second text is a more extensive description of the add-on. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 16:06, 17 January 2007 (PST)
-== dria's comments ==
+== Firefox/OS Version ==
-* Seems to be a bug at [http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/discussions/post.php?AddOnID=398] when not logged in.  At very least there should be a significantly friendlier message suggesting the user log in :)
+It seems that there is no simple way to specify the Firefox version and OS the extensions shown should be compatible with. Nor is this information shown anywhere in the lists. This results in the rather frustrating situation that one might have to browse through a long list of extensions only to detect when trying to install the extension that it is not compatible with your browser.
+This problem gets even worse if somebody just wants to download an extension for a different browser (e.g. when an administrator running Linux prepares software and extensions for a Windows installation).
+Especially for the launch of Firefox 3.0 this will be important as otherwise people will have too much difficulty in finding FF3.0 enabled extensions/themes.
+== Advanced search ==
+There should be some form that allows a more advanced search, especially the specification of a FF version and/or OS that the addon must be compatible with. Other advanced search features should be an option to exclude or include "experimental" addons or limit the extensions to those of specific authors.
-== jMax's comments (from blog) ==
+== Usability / UI revisions ==
-* The add-on licenses should be exposed, so the user knows what he's about to install.
+* People who are used to the term "themes" (existing users) are having difficulty finding them in the current hierarchy.
+** Potential solution: Finish changing the name of the category from "Interface Customizations" to "Themes & Appearance"
+* There's inconsistency between what down-arrows mean on menu headers (there's a drop-down menu available here) vs. what they mean on "Add to Firefox" buttons (up for debate! "down"load?)
+** Potential solution: remove the down arrow from the "Add to Firefox" buttons.  The arrow doesn't really have much useful semantic meaning -- it doesn't really convey "add to firefox" -- so it's really just clutter.
+* The issue of not knowing whether a given add-on is compatible with your version of Firefox/other application is a big deal
+* Listing stuff from the sandbox (experimental) by default is not useful, since even if the person goes to the trouble of creating an account in order to access it there is no useful status information such as when it was created, how long its been in a queue or what version it is compatible with. Why not only list experimental add-ons if the person is logged in?
+* Clicking on a category button such as "security and privacy" for Thunderbird add-ons gives three add-ons, in vertical columns. This is hard to read, and unexpected. Its also hard to browse all of the entries for this category since thats not one of the choices in the "see all privacy and security" box. Whats wrong with alphabetical sorting as a choice? If nothing else sometimes a user has a rough idea of the name and wants to try to find it via browsing rather than searching.
+* If the user is navigating add-ons or themes for a specific application only add-ons and themes for that application should be shown. For example, in the Thunderbird add-ons privacy and security category the first page shows the Hip Hop Radio Extension for Firefox. Thats experimental and Firefox specific.
+* If I search for the Lightning extension while running Firefox under Linux it has a "Download Now (Windows)" button for that extension. This is confusing as all of the other add-ons have "Download Now" and it choose the wrong platform when it tried to be helpful. If I click on the entry it shows separate download links for each platform. However, if I look at some other extension such as ltnPlus it uses "Download Now" both in the summary and when I click on the entry. Behavior needs to be more consistent and predictable.
+* There should be more consistency in categories among the different products. Firefox has interface customizations and toolbars, which are generic enough they would be useful in Thunderbird and probably other applications. Firefox has "other" while Thunderbird has "miscellaneous", whats the difference? Firefox has "photos, music and media" while SeaMonkey has "photos and media", why are they different?
+*  Looking at the number of categories (14 for firefox, 11 for SeaMonkey, 6 for Thunderbird, 3 for sunbird) one gets the impression some applications are not first class citizens. You would expect SeaMonkey to have the same categories (or more since its really a superset) as Firefox. Obvious categories such as Spam are missing for Thunderbird and SeaMonkey.
+* Other web sites (for example Amazon) adapt recommendations for the user, and let you provide feedback to tailor the recommendations. If I look at the Firefox recommendations the first item is Zotero, something for automatic capture of citation information from web pages. Thats not exactly mainstream :) It has 5 reviews and 13,126 downloads, which doesn't sound like much.  Its not one of the "featured" add-ons. Its not obvious why it was chosen, or that its tailored for me.
+* There isn't any information to help deal with abandoned add-ons. For example, Frank DiLecce has written a lot of popular extensions. His web site is long gone, he is no longer using the mozillaZine forums, he hasn't updated his extensions for years, and nobody has been able to contact him for years. Its not clear whats the legal status of his extensions, which prevents anybody from taking over their maintenance.
+*Searching for Noia (for the Noia themes) returns three entries. Two of them have identical names -  Noia 2.0 eXtreme. You have to click on each entry to see that one is version 2.36 and one is version 3.0. That information should have been shown on the entry (the summary).
+* Many add-ons require the user to figure out how to bypass the version check. If the add-on causes problems they sometimes need to use safe mode to let them access the menu to disable or uninstall the add-on. This information isn't available in the applications help. It would help if the web site provided some generic installation help for add-ons, even if all they did was provide links to a few SUMO and mozillaZine KB articles.
+* The web page for Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer 2.0.43 displays three images (under "More Images") as three vertical lines. If you try to display any of them you get an error message about it can not be displayed because it contains errors.
+* The date of release for addons and themes should be visible when browsing.
+== Search Results Page ==
+The SRP should support sorting and filtering of the search results, similar to the sorting options already available on the "browse extension by category" page. Filtering can filter results by specific product/version/locale ...
-== Dao's comments ==
+See bug 401136[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401136] for details.
-* I don't see how the user is expected to find, say, Thunderbird extensions. AMO2 was too Firefox-centric, AMO3 seems even worse. http://www.erweiterungen.de/ does this better.
-=> answer from cameleon : I fill the Bug 367574 – Ability to filter search of an Add-ons by application (Firefox or Thunderbird) on bugzilla about this problem.
-[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367574]
-== DonGato's comments ==
-* 'Welcome to Mozilla add-ons' should stand up more in design but not space. Currently is taking a lot of space and not being necessarily clear.
-* Doesn't discussion header looks bad? I think a right and left border is needed.
-== trev's comments ==
-* Default Locale field on /developers/add seems to encode entities twice, e.g. I see Fran&amp;#231;ais there
-* If you don't select the addon type, you will get a second message: "That file extension (.xpi) is not allowed for the selected add-on type." That pretty pointless.
-* Having to re-upload files on errors is not nice at all. Files should be kept and the input field should be replaced by the file name to indicate that they are already there.
-* Isn't it possible to detect add-on type automatically? The file will need to be unpacked and analyzed anyway.
-* When I fill out all fields correctly I get the error "Could not move file". Stuck at step 1.
-''Please remember that the Developer Pages are not a part of the alpha preview and bugs/issues with them should be saved until the beta if they still exist.''
-== pascalc's comments ==
-* on the right sidebar menu, the "Build your own" link should point to the localized version of the documentation (http://developer.mozilla.org/{locale}/docs/Extensions) if it exists
-** I agree. But I wonder how we can find out if it exists, before making the link. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 10:24, 16 January 2007 (PST)
-** The Extension part of the link is usually translated. So, there is no way how to do this automatically. I would go with <code>'http://developer.mozilla.org' . _('sidebar_navlink_build_your_own_href')</code> The same issue is with [http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Creating_OpenSearch_plugins_for_Firefox Creating_OpenSearch_plugins_for_Firefox] at  search engines page. --[[User:Pawell|Pawell]] 21 January 2007
-* Website ignores Thunderbird, the front page should at least say "Add-ons extend Firefox and Thunderbird..." and not only Firefox
-** Thank you. Multi-app support is definitely planned however not yet supported in the alpha version. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 19:50, 18 January 2007 (PST)
-== LCaution's comments (from blog) ==
-* I’d like to have an option to display items with a one-line description. Display a simple, hyperlinked list, in alphabetical order, with the name of the extension/theme/whatever and a one-sentence description of what it does. Click on the one-liner and a new tab opens to a page with a full description, comments, download, etc.
-== Omnisilver's comments (from blog) ==
-* Create a page with microformats (or use microformats in the app, at least)
-== RenegadeX's comments ==
-It's hard to test the Preview site properly with the limited # of addons currently added, but I 2nd everything already said on this page. Have you guys learnt nothing over 3+ revisions of AMO? Users are tearing out their hair crying, "All I want to do is find a specific addon or browse the mass of addons quickly and easily" - and yet with each AMO revision, it continues to be a frustrating experience:
-* What happened to 'more previews' link/text that used to be below an extension/theme's preview image? Gone or not yet implemented? Please implement and re-link the image (v2 removed this feature for some reason).
-** Yes, that will show up again. It's on my list. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]]
-* Broken: Similar to above, the ''"Subscribe to this Category"'' RSS Link points to a feed URL such as http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/addons/rss/categories/13 - when it follows that it should be [http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/addons/rss/categories/1/13 ''"/1/13"'']. Interestingly, '13' and '1/13' both have stuff in them, ''category 1035'' and ''category 1017'' respectively. That's somewhat confusing, especially as the RSS feed does not have an identifiable-by-name name..
-* On an [http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/addons/display/138 Extension(or Theme)'s page], you have the Extension Name followed by Version# on the same line (good to see it back, thanks - v2 was not good). Further down the page you have Version# and timestamp, which is thus partially redundant & a waste of space. Suggestion: go back to something closer to v1's implementation ([http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9222/amoextensionspage2oldlo0.jpg screenshot]) which put it all at the top. Clean it up a little by putting the 'released on..' on its own line.
-* Ditto the above - move it up, on the other listing pages (such as [http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/addons/recommended/ Recommended Add-ons]).
-* (And echoing 'Gijs' - what's that little icon before "Version" for?)
-** It's a style element. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 19:59, 18 January 2007 (PST)
-* Where is "Previous Versions" link?
-* Where is the ''Rating'' for extensions and themes? These were important to the user in helping decide what extensions were worthwhile installing! Sure the numbers got skewed - but that was because of a poorly-thought-out Feedback/Comment system that forced users to leave a rating with a comment, and didn't allow users to edit their rating (see IMDB, perhaps?). You should have fixed the problems, rather than take the whole thing away. Is this progress? No.
-** There are reviews you can add, and you can edit your rating as well. Also, we moved discussions into the discussion forums while reviews are now meant for rating the add-on only. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 12:47, 17 January 2007 (PST)
-* Why no Dictionaries link in the Menu? v2 never included it (to coincide with Firefox 2.0's introduction of the built-in spell-checker). Do that, and include a link to the Dictionaries extension Category on it, and vice-versa.
-* Still no 'Browse All/Browse by letter' feature. This is sorely needed.
-** We have a "browse all" feature now (in trunk). --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 18:29, 19 January 2007 (PST)
-'' I could easily go on with my list but this is getting depressing. This thing was meant to be an improvement, was it not? Come on, this shouldn't be this difficult!'''
-[[User:RenegadeX|RenegadeX]] 04:26, 17 January 2007 (PST)
-* Thank you for your extensive feedback. That helps us a lot to make Remora better. Regarding your "improvement" question: Keep in mind that the current public preview is still an "alpha" version. It is, almost by definition, incomplete, sometimes buggy, has rough edges and is far away from perfect -- or from its final state, for that matter. Therefore it is important that you tell us what you like, and what you don't, so you can influence how Remora will look and feel like when it's done. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 11:19, 17 January 2007 (PST)
-== Yoko's comments ==
-* The plugins must be selected by UA of browser (linux's users not see the Windows plugins) as for the official Firefox web page.
-* The langage must be too selected by the UA.
-** it is, or it should be, at least. Doesn't that work for you? --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 12:19, 20 January 2007 (PST)
-***I'm sorry, I don't has the Firefox's UA (but Epiphany UA). I'm really sorry for this.
-* The thunderbird's and nvu's extensions are not very easy at find.
-== Moe's comments (from [http://blog.mozilla.com/webdev/2007/01/18/amo-preview-updates-2/#comment-27 blog]) ==
-Ah, just wrote this as a comment to an older entry but this was supposed to be a comment on the current design. So here it goes again:
-I don’t really like the new design, because
-* too much design, too few information. A lot of blank and wasted space
-* No separation between products. What if I’m only interested in Thunderbird?
-* Probably still no way to list a lot of extensions with short descriptions to get an overview. Too much clicking, too much wasted time.
-* Filesize would be nice, at least on the details page
-** It's there, above the release notes. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 12:35, 20 January 2007 (PST)
-* No releasedate information
-** What do you mean? Of course there is. In each list, like [http://preview.addons.mozilla.org/en-US/addons/recommended/ this one], for example, there are release dates. --[[User:Wenzel|wenzel]] 12:35, 20 January 2007 (PST)
-Generally spoken: this goes solely in the direction “fancy” but it should mainly go in the direction “userfriendly” and “informative” (nothing against fancy, of course).
-== Dolske's comments ==
-(pending; creating this section for easier editing)

Update:Remora Feedback: Difference between revisions