One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update
* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.
* The code does not use screen space well.

How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.

Thanks!

--Winston

Winston wrote:
One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update
* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.
* The code does not use screen space well.

How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.

Thanks!

--Winston

you're not going to like this answer, but all she needs to do is hire some
really skilled developers.

good luck finding them and then paying for them though.

You get what you pay for.

"Winston" wrote in message
...
Cydrome Leader wrote:
wrote:
One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update
* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.
* The code does not use screen space well.

How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.

Thanks!

--Winston

you're not going to like this answer, but all she needs to do is hire
some
really skilled developers.

good luck finding them and then paying for them though.

You get what you pay for.

That is not a surprising answer.

I'm anxious to learn about the
surprising, delightful answers as well.

I would imagine that sites such as McM, MSC, Graingers, etc, are VERY
expensive propositions, no?
Unless the database itself is basically simple, and it's the SIZE that is
misleadingly impressive.....

I'm curious about your general Q as well, as I'm sort of in your friend's
position, and am hoping GoDaddy will have cheap-but-respectable turnkey
solutions, as well as places like SiteBuilder, and a cupla others.

I'm hoping this dazzling technology becomes commodity-ish, like, well, chips
themselves.
--
EA





Thanks!

--Winston

On Jun 11, 5:09*pm, Winston wrote:
Existential Angst wrote:
*wrote in message
...

(...)

I'm anxious to learn about the
surprising, delightful answers as well.

I would imagine that sites such as McM, MSC, Graingers, etc, are VERY
expensive propositions, no?

'Wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that McM has contracted with a
good-sized company to design and maintain it's web presence.
It sure looks like the 'high priced spread'.

Unless the database itself is basically simple, and it's the SIZE that is
misleadingly impressive.....

I'm curious about your general Q as well, as I'm sort of in your friend's
position, and am hoping GoDaddy will have cheap-but-respectable turnkey
solutions, as well as places like SiteBuilder, and a cupla others.

I'm hoping this dazzling technology becomes commodity-ish, like, well, chips
themselves.

The closest thing to 'commodity' status appears to be the purchase of
an eCommerce package like BigCommerce and just design-by-clicking-boxes.
'Course it is rentware, so you get to pay ~$80 a month to them *after*
you purchase the package.

--Winston

I like Zen Cart and Click Cart. Zen cart is free. Both take more
effort on the part of the vendor/webmaster, but are clean professional
experiences for the shopper.

Bob La Londe wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:09 pm, wrote:

(...)

The closest thing to 'commodity' status appears to be the purchase of
an eCommerce package like BigCommerce and just design-by-clicking-boxes.
'Course it is rentware, so you get to pay ~$80 a month to them *after*
you purchase the package.

--Winston

I like Zen Cart and Click Cart. Zen cart is free. Both take more
effort on the part of the vendor/webmaster, but are clean professional
experiences for the shopper.

Thanks Bob, I will check them out.


--Winston

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:05:19 -0700, Winston
wrote:

One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update

Did she use Photoshop to deflate her unwieldy 2MB pics down to 80KB
(or much smaller, depending upon pixel size needed) pics, with very
little loss of clarity? I've been doing that for years. It's called
optimization. This can make a slovenly store into a nice experience
all by itself.


* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.

Use a different search module or store software.


* The code does not use screen space well.

See above.


How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.

Simple. She buys a custom, ready-to-use store from an integrator, at
great cost. McMaster probably has $100k invested in their store, with
several years of testing and massaging to get it to where it is today.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Bob La Londe
wrote:

On Jun 11, 5:09Â*pm, Winston wrote:
Existential Angst wrote:
Â*wrote in message
...

(...)

I'm anxious to learn about the
surprising, delightful answers as well.

I would imagine that sites such as McM, MSC, Graingers, etc, are VERY
expensive propositions, no?

'Wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that McM has contracted with a
good-sized company to design and maintain it's web presence.
It sure looks like the 'high priced spread'.

Unless the database itself is basically simple, and it's the SIZE that is
misleadingly impressive.....

I'm curious about your general Q as well, as I'm sort of in your friend's
position, and am hoping GoDaddy will have cheap-but-respectable turnkey
solutions, as well as places like SiteBuilder, and a cupla others.

I'm hoping this dazzling technology becomes commodity-ish, like, well, chips
themselves.

The closest thing to 'commodity' status appears to be the purchase of
an eCommerce package like BigCommerce and just design-by-clicking-boxes.
'Course it is rentware, so you get to pay ~$80 a month to them *after*
you purchase the package.

--Winston

I like Zen Cart and Click Cart. Zen cart is free. Both take more
effort on the part of the vendor/webmaster, but are clean professional
experiences for the shopper.

I've installed ZenCart several times, and it's a nice system, but it's
nowhere near as fast or clean as McM.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:33:51 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Bob La Londe wrote:
On Jun 11, 5:09 pm, wrote:

(...)

The closest thing to 'commodity' status appears to be the purchase of
an eCommerce package like BigCommerce and just design-by-clicking-boxes.
'Course it is rentware, so you get to pay ~$80 a month to them *after*
you purchase the package.

--Winston

I like Zen Cart and Click Cart. Zen cart is free. Both take more
effort on the part of the vendor/webmaster, but are clean professional
experiences for the shopper.

Thanks Bob, I will check them out.

If she gets ZenCart, have her buy the monstrously expensive 3rd party
manual by Hoek. It will save her days of heartache.
http://goo.gl/jfaYR (Lulu, not A/TSR, though there's one on A for $33)

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

If she gets ZenCart, have her buy the monstrously expensive 3rd party
manual by Hoek. It will save her days of heartache.
http://goo.gl/jfaYR (Lulu, not A/TSR, though there's one on A for $33)

Thanks, Larry!

--Winston

Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

I've installed ZenCart several times, and it's a nice system, but it's
nowhere near as fast or clean as McM.

Sometimes 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough'.

--Winston

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:05:19 -0700,
wrote:

One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update

Did she use Photoshop to deflate her unwieldy 2MB pics down to 80KB
(or much smaller, depending upon pixel size needed) pics, with very
little loss of clarity? I've been doing that for years. It's called
optimization. This can make a slovenly store into a nice experience
all by itself.

Dunno. The thumbnails are *tiny* yet take forever to load.
'View Large Image' is instantaneous, so I guess that she
does not have separate files for thumbnails and large images.


* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.

Use a different search module or store software.

That's the idear.


* The code does not use screen space well.

See above.


How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.

Simple. She buys a custom, ready-to-use store from an integrator, at
great cost. McMaster probably has $100k invested in their store, with
several years of testing and massaging to get it to where it is today.

After looking at Zen Cart, I can see that she doesn't really need to
spend on a 'McMaster' scale to radically improve her site.

Thanks!

--Winston

Winston wrote:

One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update
* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.
* The code does not use screen space well.

How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.
I built a web store using oscmax, an open-source e-commerce
system that is fairly easy to use. They want to sell you their
service to configure the main page and get their ads off it, but
it is pretty easy to edit the script to do that.

You can see my store at :
http://pico-systems.com/oscrc4/catalog/index.php

It took a lot of time to get all the necessary utilities and
servers on my system, and to make it all secure. The oscmax people
have a new version that I need to upgrade to.

I'm not sure how much global search capability it has.

I hope you are joking about the McMaster-Carr site, they probably
spend several million $ per year to maintain and develop it.

Jon

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:36:58 -0500, Jon Elson
wrote:

Winston wrote:

One of my pals put together a web store using Google's
'checkout store gadget':
http://groups.google.com/group/check...t/topics?gvc=2

The store is fairly user-unfriendly because:
* Product images take much too long to update
* The code does not support 'global search' across multiple
categories.
* The code does not use screen space well.

How does she create a store that has the functionality and
user-friendliness of the 'gold standard' mcmaster.com
quickly, economically and with high quality without
a steep 'learning curve'.
I built a web store using oscmax, an open-source e-commerce
system that is fairly easy to use. They want to sell you their
service to configure the main page and get their ads off it, but
it is pretty easy to edit the script to do that.

You can see my store at :
http://pico-systems.com/oscrc4/catalog/index.php

Nice!

It took a lot of time to get all the necessary utilities and
servers on my system, and to make it all secure. The oscmax people
have a new version that I need to upgrade to.

ZenCart has roots in OS Commerce, too.


I'm not sure how much global search capability it has.

Too much. g It searches descriptions as well as headers.


I hope you are joking about the McMaster-Carr site, they probably
spend several million $ per year to maintain and develop it.

That much, do you think? Perhaps if they outsource all services,
inventory, and _everything_.

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:04:21 -0700, Winston
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

I've installed ZenCart several times, and it's a nice system, but it's
nowhere near as fast or clean as McM.

Sometimes 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good enough'.

Especially after you hear HOW MUCH 'PERFECT' COSTS! thud

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

Well, neither of those example stores impress. Both are using
needlessly huge pics.

The first one here I compressed to 39K
http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_500px.jpg
This is the original 100K
http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_500px.jpg

Tell me you can see an appreciable visual difference, yet one will
load almost 4 times faster. I could easily get it down to 28K with a
tiny but acceptable amount of fuzzies on the fine text.

I have been programming websites for probably 15 years, can't recall
when I started, but it is not an afternoon's book reading to do it.

Dave

Larry Jaques wrote:

(...)

I turned off the right column and expanded the middle to give more
real estate.

How did you do that? I didn't see the button, Max.

It's fun jumping into the middle of 1,000 new files
which make up another programmer's app, isn't it?sigh

It's becoming easier to understand why one elects not to
maintain someone else's undocumented code.


--Winston

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:00:02 -0700 (PDT), "Dave, I can't do that"
wrote:

Well, neither of those example stores impress. Both are using
needlessly huge pics.

The first one here I compressed to 39K
http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_500px.jpg
This is the original 100K
http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_500px.jpg

I think she did a passable job on optimization compared to some sites
I've seen, with the same physical size pics taking two to four
megabytes each.


Tell me you can see an appreciable visual difference, yet one will
load almost 4 times faster. I could easily get it down to 28K with a
tiny but acceptable amount of fuzzies on the fine text.

Good job, BTW.


I have been programming websites for probably 15 years, can't recall
when I started, but it is not an afternoon's book reading to do it.

Ditto. Five years after I began, I bought a copy of Jennifer
Niederst's _Web Design in a Nutshell_ and almost cried. There she had
almost all of the little hard-won tips and tricks I'd learned in those
first 5 years. It's out in its third edition now. http://goo.gl/NmP5z

--
The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
--Herbert Spencer

Dave, I can't do that wrote:
Well, neither of those example stores impress. Both are using
needlessly huge pics.

The first one here I compressed to 39K
http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_500px.jpg
This is the original 100K
http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_500px.jpg

Tell me you can see an appreciable visual difference, yet one will
load almost 4 times faster. I could easily get it down to 28K with a
tiny but acceptable amount of fuzzies on the fine text.

I have been programming websites for probably 15 years, can't recall
when I started, but it is not an afternoon's book reading to do it.

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/...-fem_Thumb.jpg

This is the kind of image that should load during page refreshes.
It's 4.7K or 5% the size of the original and less than 12% the size of
the compressed version.

It would speed up page refreshes by 8.3 x.
If a customer clicks on the thumbnail, *then* he can wait for the ~ 40 KB
download. Page refreshes would require 82 KB, not 680 KB as it would
be with 40 KB images and certainly not 1.6 MB as it is now.

--Winston

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:28:32 -0700 (PDT), "Dave, I can't do that"
wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:17Â*pm, Winston wrote:
This is the kind of image that should load during page refreshes.
It's 4.7K or 5% the size of the original and less than 12% the size of
the compressed version.

AWinston
I agree, but I was trying to point out that a 60% saving could be made
on the big pics. Had I done it thumbnail size as you did, it is near
impossible to compare detail. I was trying to convince someone to do
something a different way and unless you can show there is virtually
no visual difference there is little chance of them being convinced.

Verily, and I've taken a guy's 111kb page and put it out at 10kb after
some fine tuning. Micro$oft Word-to-HTML output is the worst.


@Larry, I hate it when people say, "but it' s better than...."
That irritates me comparing one poorly made thing against an even
worse made thing as though there is some justification for the first
item's existence just because it is not as bad as it could be. That's
the good old, "near enough" syndrome that appears to be leading the
way these days.

I see that you'd rather I say what I meant, which was "It's not nearly
as bad as some I've seen." Feel better now?

--
You are today where your thoughts have brought you;
you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you.
-- James Lane Allen

CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Yup.
And a workable naming convention.

B_name.png for a Button
T_name.png for a Thumbnail
P_name.png for a Picture
etc...

That kind of thing really helps when you have hundreds of files to
dig through (and a sorted listing )

My boat's website just pegged out (10 MB) this evening and I had to
re-do some of the imagery. It was never really "designed", it just
growed that way. There is no real consistency as far as naming photo.

But the naming convention for web objects really helped.

That is a great idea, Richard. Thanks!

--Winston

Winston wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Yup.
And a workable naming convention.

B_name.png for a Button
T_name.png for a Thumbnail
P_name.png for a Picture
etc...

That kind of thing really helps when you have hundreds of files to
dig through (and a sorted listing )

My boat's website just pegged out (10 MB) this evening and I had to
re-do some of the imagery. It was never really "designed", it just
growed that way. There is no real consistency as far as naming photo.

But the naming convention for web objects really helped.

That is a great idea, Richard. Thanks!

--Winston


If you are actually doing this kind of stuff, take it a bit further.

!name.HTM for all html files - so all the pages sort to the top of he list.

And tag any other kind of file that you have several of...
Text files - Xname?
PDF files - Aname (Adobe)?


Make it as easy on your own self as you can!

But then we all give better advice than we take...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

CaveLamb wrote:

My boat's website just pegged out (10 MB) this evening and I had to
re-do some of the imagery. It was never really "designed", it just
growed that way. There is no real consistency as far as naming photo.

But the naming convention for web objects really helped.


Earthlink gives you multiple free websites, one for each e-mail
address. On broadband you get eight. I don't know how many you get on
DSL or dialup. You could split it between multiple sites, if you have
any spares.


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:47:01 -0700, Winston
wrote:

CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Yup.
And a workable naming convention.

B_name.png for a Button
T_name.png for a Thumbnail
P_name.png for a Picture
etc...

That kind of thing really helps when you have hundreds of files to
dig through (and a sorted listing )

My boat's website just pegged out (10 MB) this evening and I had to
re-do some of the imagery. It was never really "designed", it just
growed that way. There is no real consistency as far as naming photo.

But the naming convention for web objects really helped.

That is a great idea, Richard. Thanks!

I use picture.jpg for regular size pics, picture_m.jpg for medium size
(like a catalog page), and picture_t.jpg for 80x64pixel thumbs. This
leaves them in alpha order.

--
To know the road ahead, ask those coming back.
-- Chinese Proverb

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:47:01 -0700,
wrote:

CaveLamb wrote:

(...)

Yup.
And a workable naming convention.

B_name.png for a Button
T_name.png for a Thumbnail
P_name.png for a Picture
etc...

That kind of thing really helps when you have hundreds of files to
dig through (and a sorted listing )

My boat's website just pegged out (10 MB) this evening and I had to
re-do some of the imagery. It was never really "designed", it just
growed that way. There is no real consistency as far as naming photo.

But the naming convention for web objects really helped.

That is a great idea, Richard. Thanks!

I use picture.jpg for regular size pics, picture_m.jpg for medium size
(like a catalog page), and picture_t.jpg for 80x64pixel thumbs. This
leaves them in alpha order.

That way, it's quickly obvious when I don't have a thumbnail for
a given larger bitmap, or a larger bitmap for a given thumbnail.
Gotcha chief. Thanks!

--Winston

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
My boat's website just pegged out (10 MB) this evening and I had to
re-do some of the imagery. It was never really "designed", it just
growed that way. There is no real consistency as far as naming photo.

But the naming convention for web objects really helped.


Earthlink gives you multiple free websites, one for each e-mail
address. On broadband you get eight. I don't know how many you get on
DSL or dialup. You could split it between multiple sites, if you have
any spares.



There are two addresses listed below...
They are intended to be different sites...

But if the boat side grows any more (which it will, of course) it will
need to spill over to another address.

cave1 and cave2 are sometimes used to post temporary photos and stuff for
text based newsgroup discussions. Used to do that often on rec.av.homebuilt.

cave3 and cave4 are unused so far. Will probably rename one of those
for the spill over. Or just hatch another one?


Haven't figured out what is about yet
I hope it will be interesting though...

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress