Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I'm loosing my first customers ...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm loosing my first customers ...

    Hello,

    I'm now working with scriptcase for some years.
    But more and more I hear that my customers are not happy with the old fashioned looking layout of this software.

    I think there are two different point of views.

    a) I work in a bureau. I don't need amazing styles and a lot of pictures.. I have to work on tables .. the software
    must be fast and easy to use ... For this SC ist just the best software

    b) I have to represent my office in the web and my customers are working on my internet platform.
    SC has few options to create good looking web pages !! You can't sell anything in the web if your
    presentation on web is not looking good.

    I now lost my first customers who changed to another company because that what I could offer with SC was
    not enough !!

    In my opinion SC must work hard to improve the appearence of the application.
    It's really looking like a software 5 years ago .... this is not the way pages are presented on web today !!
    I have nearly no possibilities to make the web page more interesting.

    If I loose again customers... SC will loose me ..


    Best regard
    Uwe Pfeiffer

  • #2
    But whats the problem exactly? You can change header & footer configuration, control over CSS, buttons and so on. to give it the look you want.

    About b) I'm not totally agree. SC is a tool to create Web Applications, not websites. And I don't understand exactly where SC don't looks good, or what in SC you can't change to look it better.
    /Giuseppe

    Professional Scriptcase Services
    Some Customers opinions

    Comment


    • #3
      Helo,

      for example : have a look at www.verivox.de a web application.
      I wonder how to create such an application with SC....
      the screen is divided into several parts with different contents .... this way a web site should look.

      The static grids and forms have no the possibility to do so.

      Best regards
      Uwe

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, the site you link I don't see it as a Web app, but a website with some web apps integrated.

        In SC you don't have just grids and forms,you have container and blank Apps too.

        Said that, for a site like this, combination of technologies is needed IMHO. You can construct this front page with blank apps, but a lot of custom code is needed, custom code you can save using a CMS. I would use a CMS like Joomla for frontend and SC for backend. If you want to show on frontend SC apps, you can with iframes. All CMS has this option.

        The "Die güngstigsten Tarife" block can be Developed otherwise on SC, but obviously you need some css skills.

        Conclusión for me is. As I mentioned, SC is for web applications, not for content management. Its possible to develop a web like this just with SC? Yes. Its worth? No. Alternatives? Combinación of CMS for frontend and SC for data management in backend and some apps customized to be showed in frontend if needed. What CMS to use? IT depends on your need and taste. Aducom likes e107, I work with Joomla and Drupal.

        Just my 2 cents.
        /Giuseppe

        Professional Scriptcase Services
        Some Customers opinions

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Giu View Post
          Well, the site you link I don't see it as a Web app, but a website with some web apps integrated.

          In SC you don't have just grids and forms,you have container and blank Apps too.

          Said that, for a site like this, combination of technologies is needed IMHO. You can construct this front page with blank apps, but a lot of custom code is needed, custom code you can save using a CMS. I would use a CMS like Joomla for frontend and SC for backend. If you want to show on frontend SC apps, you can with iframes. All CMS has this option.

          The "Die güngstigsten Tarife" block can be Developed otherwise on SC, but obviously you need some css skills.

          Conclusión for me is. As I mentioned, SC is for web applications, not for content management. Its possible to develop a web like this just with SC? Yes. Its worth? No. Alternatives? Combinación of CMS for frontend and SC for data management in backend and some apps customized to be showed in frontend if needed. What CMS to use? IT depends on your need and taste. Aducom likes e107, I work with Joomla and Drupal.

          Just my 2 cents.
          Oh, I work with WP too ;-) But I must agree on this as I have been posting my (similar) opinion here before. We too are working with SC for a couple of years now and I see the opposite movement. Use the tools where they are good at. If you only have a hammer then every screw will become a nail we say.
          Albert Drent
          aducom software netherlands
          scriptcase partner, reseller, support and (turn-key) development
          www.scriptcase.eu / www.scriptcase.nl

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello
            I will try with jscriptcase... maybe that's my solution...

            Thanks
            Uwe

            Comment


            • #7
              Pfeiffer,

              I have the same thoughts about the overall look and feel. I'm impressed with the out-of-the-box functionality of SC but I'm equally unimpressed with the current layouts. I am currently evaluating SC but the look and feel is really hold me back. Something that is bugging me is why SC does not have a basic structure or layout for a full fledged application. SC calls what I would consider modules (grid, chart, form, etc...) applications and that just makes things more confusing. I don't consider a form or grid by itself an application. What I consider an application is the collection of grids, forms, charts all nicely integrated into a basic layout. That is what seems to be missing from SC.

              As a potential customer, I think SC should consider adding a layout module that would allow all of the independent 'applicatons' to be integrated into. For example, it makes more sense to create all of my grids and forms and then put them inside a basic layout that would have a horizontal menu above and tabs below. Perhaps SC can do that now but if so please do show me how. I've watched most of your videos (which are very nice) but none that show me how to integrate all of my 'applications'. I'm stuck here and if I cant come up with something that makes me happy then I will probably stop considering SC.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by joselvelez View Post
                Pfeiffer,

                I have the same thoughts about the overall look and feel. I'm impressed with the out-of-the-box functionality of SC but I'm equally unimpressed with the current layouts. I am currently evaluating SC but the look and feel is really hold me back. Something that is bugging me is why SC does not have a basic structure or layout for a full fledged application. SC calls what I would consider modules (grid, chart, form, etc...) applications and that just makes things more confusing. I don't consider a form or grid by itself an application. What I consider an application is the collection of grids, forms, charts all nicely integrated into a basic layout. That is what seems to be missing from SC.

                As a potential customer, I think SC should consider adding a layout module that would allow all of the independent 'applicatons' to be integrated into. For example, it makes more sense to create all of my grids and forms and then put them inside a basic layout that would have a horizontal menu above and tabs below. Perhaps SC can do that now but if so please do show me how. I've watched most of your videos (which are very nice) but none that show me how to integrate all of my 'applications'. I'm stuck here and if I cant come up with something that makes me happy then I will probably stop considering SC.
                What you call an application, is called a project in Scriptcase terms. I had to get used to that too as I agree on your definition. To SC every php module is an application. What's in a name ;-)

                Regarding your second question, there are a lot of movies to watch to see how things are done. On our own site you can find some more and it's more about creating an application (project). But SC is bound to certain limitations. If you look at

                http://www.aducomportal.nl/p1.png or http://www.aducomportal.nl/p2.png you see samples of an application we build which does look good (in our eyes) although it's a matter of taste. But if you think you can create fully aware website with all the whisles and bells then you cannot realize that with Scriptcase and I doubt if there's a generating tool on the market that can... That's why we regularly use a cms to host the application in. In general you should use tools at what they are good at. If you want full control you need to go back to the bone. Pure html/css and/or php
                Last edited by aducom; 06-10-2014, 11:43 AM.
                Albert Drent
                aducom software netherlands
                scriptcase partner, reseller, support and (turn-key) development
                www.scriptcase.eu / www.scriptcase.nl

                Comment


                • #9
                  Albert,

                  Thanks for the links to additional videos. I'll will check those out.

                  Jose

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In 2014

                    Originally posted by Pfeiffer View Post
                    Hello,

                    I'm now working with scriptcase for some years.
                    But more and more I hear that my customers are not happy with the old fashioned looking layout of this software.

                    I think there are two different point of views.

                    a) I work in a bureau. I don't need amazing styles and a lot of pictures.. I have to work on tables .. the software
                    must be fast and easy to use ... For this SC ist just the best software

                    b) I have to represent my office in the web and my customers are working on my internet platform.
                    SC has few options to create good looking web pages !! You can't sell anything in the web if your
                    presentation on web is not looking good.

                    I now lost my first customers who changed to another company because that what I could offer with SC was
                    not enough !!

                    In my opinion SC must work hard to improve the appearence of the application.
                    It's really looking like a software 5 years ago .... this is not the way pages are presented on web today !!
                    I have nearly no possibilities to make the web page more interesting.

                    If I loose again customers... SC will loose me ..


                    Best regard
                    Uwe Pfeiffer
                    Today (jan 2017) I am working on SC 8 and the things are still TRUE.

                    Originally posted by Giu View Post
                    But whats the problem exactly? You can change header & footer configuration, control over CSS, buttons and so on. to give it the look you want.

                    About b) I'm not totally agree. SC is a tool to create Web Applications, not websites. And I don't understand exactly where SC don't looks good, or what in SC you can't change to look it better.

                    Problem exactly is:
                    1. The main idea of SC is awesome
                    2. The way how to do it is really really old fashion
                    3. At the first glance it look pretty well BUT
                    4. Layout dividing into <div> | <section> bloks are totally missing
                    5. Instead table in table layout is used every where
                    6. Too much inline style, ideally there should by no inline style
                    7. Table is using JS instead 'CSS :hower' to change the line where the cursor is
                    8. The view is differ very differ in browsers, something is better in FF something in Chrome ... really dizaster, post editing is needed
                    9. Try to inspect the generated code - totally mash, no coding standard, old fashion class usage
                    10. I inspect a little bit the generate code there is a lot of basic mistakes
                    11. So therefore I would argue that the code is very low quality
                    12. I guess that the code creator is have similar code quality
                    13. Low quality code explains the mysterious behavior of SC and unrepeatable errors
                    14. Some of the third party library is really old
                    15. This is not sufficient for today market and for customer demand
                    16. At first I was impressed but to day I will not recommend the SC
                    17. However the there is no similar alternative in the market to complexity
                    Example of the third party library age:
                    ADODB_vers = 'v4.991 16 Oct 2008
                    JQ UI 1.10.4 Released on January 17, 2014 https://jqueryui.com/changelog/
                    COOLjsTree, Version: 2.8.7a, Last Modify: 4 Feb 2007
                    COOLjsMenu, Version: 2.9.4g, Last Modify: 11 Apr 2007
                    PHP Layers Menu 3.2.0-rc (Aug 17, 2004)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      MilanB I agree almost with all you wrote, and I hope with 9 a new era in styling starts to change.But, see it in context, this post started almost 3 years ago, and for SC 7. In SC8, new themes appeared (don't solving some of the styling issues and bad practices you mention but..) and AFAIK, NetMake hired a frontend dev to start this change for 9+. All we can do, is to wait and see what happens.

                      Anyway, I said a lot of times. SC is not for all projects, and SC objects is not for all needs. SC is for web apps, not websites. Somebody can say with SC you can't get a POS touch screen for example, and then I show you this screenshots. You can see too spanish webinar about ecofin, and how they mix SC with MUICSS.

                      Screenshots are old (I used the ones I had uploaded to not create new, but you get the idea). This screens are SC. Yes, hardcoded, but with a SC backend.SC is a complex and big project, and sometimes, changes, are difficult because backward compatibility, and because thath SC inherits a lot of code from very old versions. Don't take me wrong, I don't try to make good the NetMake fails, but, "when a door is closed, you can search for another open" (I tried to translated, and bad, a spanish phrase, maybe, don't makes sense in english).

                      If over time, SC don't fits your/our needs, and NetMake is not responsive to customers and technology demands, the most obvious move is, sadly, to migrate.

                      /Giuseppe

                      Professional Scriptcase Services
                      Some Customers opinions

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think it would be best to start new threads. Besides, yes most of the points has been addressed in a lot of posts in the passing years. SC has it's own path, and sometimes I fail to see why they taking that.
                        Albert Drent
                        aducom software netherlands
                        scriptcase partner, reseller, support and (turn-key) development
                        www.scriptcase.eu / www.scriptcase.nl

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Thank you Giu and Aducom for your response.

                          I understand that the SC is primary not websites. But I thing that is it possible to do everything with SC as Giu showed by touching post app.

                          The problem is that it is only start time for me with SC. I have been working with SC only for one month and I am very disappointed with the quality of SC.
                          For example this ridiculous bug: http://www.scriptcase.net/forum/foru...4884#post74884

                          About of the inheritance of old code is obvious but it does not have anything with the backward compatibility (BC). SC has no real BC because the old code must be converted. Dependencies on the SC macros is not a BC problem.

                          On the other hand the final code is so senstive and in my opinion every new version will make a big problems and will do a lot of BC brakes.

                          Why ?
                          - SC has no private functions and properties.
                          - SC do not use __construct, __destructs and other magic functions.
                          - SC has a lot dependencies on the global scope.
                          - Every app has an own life and a lot of things is not compatible between them.

                          I am able to do everything in SC (even website) and I am using the before mentioned non standard code freedom. But it is so hard.
                          It is enough to change something in the code generator and the app will not work as I expect.


                          Originally posted by aducom View Post
                          I think it would be best to start new threads. Besides, yes most of the points has been addressed in a lot of posts in the passing years. SC has it's own path, and sometimes I fail to see why they taking that.
                          Because lot of things is still actual and it is really annoying. And as I see that the problems I have with SC the guys had before a couple of years and it is a very sad thing.
                          I am very happy that I do not bought the payd support and the payd course. I was thinking about it but today I have a clear attitude in this way. For me after one month with working in SC is everything clear and there is nothing to learn or reach with NetMake.

                          I am looking forward to SC9 and I have a strong belief that it will be much more stable a better than SC8.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X