Jump to content

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

CS-Cart 3 RC Released Rate Topic   * * * * * 15 votes

 
  • solesurvivor
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 05-Aug 11
  • 745 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:25 PM #221

no setting for this?

 
  • Eduard
  • Junior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 22-Feb 11
  • 86 posts

Posted 15 March 2012 - 08:56 PM #222

Where can I change the payment icons which are shown in the footer. It is in blocks but I cannot figure out how to add and change them.

 
  • kmolchanov
  • CS-Cart team
  • Join Date: 06-May 11
  • 1313 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:00 AM #223

Congratulations!
What the next release of CS-Cart 3, final?

This one's not the last RC before the final release.

Konstantin Molchanov,
CS-Cart Architect Team
Suggest and vote for new features | Report a bug


 
  • kmolchanov
  • CS-Cart team
  • Join Date: 06-May 11
  • 1313 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:43 AM #224

Where I can disable the quick view ? :)


There is no such possibility at the moment, but it will be added shortly.

Konstantin Molchanov,
CS-Cart Architect Team
Suggest and vote for new features | Report a bug


 
  • kmolchanov
  • CS-Cart team
  • Join Date: 06-May 11
  • 1313 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:54 AM #225

Where can I change the payment icons which are shown in the footer. It is in blocks but I cannot figure out how to add and change them.


This payment icon block is currently a static block, thus can't be modified.

You can just replace it with an HTML block and populate it with the icons you need (or any other content actually).

Konstantin Molchanov,
CS-Cart Architect Team
Suggest and vote for new features | Report a bug


 
  • glyndon
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 07-Dec 06
  • 187 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:09 AM #226

But are we all agreed that 960.gs is better than no grid system at all?


While I agree that having CS-Cart in a grid system makes block managment much easier I feel that restricting the grid to a set size of 960px makes it more of a hindrance than an advantage at the moment.

It won't be long before this restriction will be showing up in shopping cart reviews as a negative and therefore may put some people off.

What we really need is the ability to create custom grid sizes and more choices of number of columns within the cart.
________________________________

Using all versions of CS-Cart since 1.3.4
________________________________

 
  • NairdaCart
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 18-Jul 11
  • 306 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 11:10 AM #227

I think adopting a standard such as the 960 system makes a lot of sense. There is a huge amount of easy to use CSS available to work with this system which is a great deal easier than the current way.

 
  • sellon
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 07-Feb 10
  • 151 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 01:31 PM #228

But are we all agreed that 960.gs is better than no grid system at all?

Hopefully at a later stage we can plug in custom grid systems

As a business owner and user, I think it's better than no grid system. I agree.
It is a good out of the box solution for users like me who can be put together in short time without too much programming and changes. It's a great tool & easy to use.

However, I do understand reading on this forum that from a developers point of view and at a technical level some might think it's going back given developers build for varying customer base. I don't know I can't be critical like some as I don't understand from a 'dumb' users perspective.

I think it is challenging task & business decision for CS Cart as to what level they target their product as they are trying to satisfy everyone. I think they are doing a great job listening and well ahead of the rest in the marketplace. Well done guys & looking forward to the final release.

 
  • dustundag
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 24-Mar 08
  • 227 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:16 PM #229

doing a great job listening
If cs-cart listening to users, then why 960.grid system voting started and favoured by admin for less voted 960.gs system rather than targeting in advance for heavily voted user voice ideas still not accepted ?

 
  • webjive
  • Junior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 27-May 11
  • 38 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:36 PM #230

Lol, you must live in a small retail world cubicle as in the B2b business transactions world, I can assure you our customers (Purchasing Agents, Engineering managers, etc.) will not be frequently sitting at their desks placing orders through their Kindle Fire, and certainly not thru their toy Android phones! :grin:

It depends upon the market you are focusing on, and it is a very big world out there......


@struck I love how you took that one out of context.

I used to run a purchasing department controlling $365m in IT spend for a large telecom and we would have never run across systems like CS-Cart running buyer or seller portals.

You are right, we focus on small to large retail and wholesale shops which is what CS-Cart (in our humble opinion) is designed for. Not as a large corporation B2B system.

Now, as for the 960 grid system we, have have developed well over 200 sites with most not using a 960 layout but, we prefer the 960 layout. We have built 2 dozen or so sites with 960 and love it.

The good thing with opensource code is you can change anything you want. Most of the width issues can be overridden with CSS changes.
Eric Caldwell - CEO
Web-JIVE LLC
www.web-jive.com
501-58801979

 
  • glyndon
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 07-Dec 06
  • 187 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 03:56 PM #231

The good thing with opensource code is you can change anything you want. Most of the width issues can be overridden with CSS changes.


webjive, surely you agree that there is probably now more CSS work required to get a non-960 grid design into CS-Cart Version 3 than there was in versions 2.2.4 and earlier? For us, it is not a case of 'can it be done' but a case of 'how much time will it add to each project'.

This goes back to my original post about how we feel this move by CS-Cart has created more restrictions than benefits.

As a user of the 960 grid system you will already know that the opinion of the system is very divided. For CS-Cart to choose this path based on 58 votes in the ideas forum is a very bold move. I just hope that this is only the beginning and that they intend to develop this further.
________________________________

Using all versions of CS-Cart since 1.3.4
________________________________

 
  • LFLizmark
  • Junior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 10-May 09
  • 9 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 04:22 PM #232

Dear CS-Cart team:

I thank God for such a wonderful work that you have done. I would like to ask you, and please don't feel bad with my question, but when will finally the CS-Cart 3.0 final version be ready to purchase? We need the month and the day that it will be available for download. Other thing, can I use the editor in this 3.0 version, using tables as I did in other releases? Will I be able to erase the orders created as examples?

Thanks

 
  • Kathiew
  • Junior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 18-Jan 11
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 06:35 PM #233

Sorry if I missed the answer to this, but will customizing the design still be done using hooks and my_changes even though the template will now be using grids? Will any changes to the design ( colors, background images ) be overwritten during future upgrades if they aren't in the my_changes folder?

Thanks

 
  • Struck
  • Teetering on Genious
  • Members
  • Join Date: 07-Mar 09
  • 2502 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 08:30 PM #234

@struck I love how you took that one out of context.

I used to run a purchasing department controlling $365m in IT spend for a large telecom and we would have never run across systems like CS-Cart running buyer or seller portals.


I imagine that if you would have been using a real monitor at your desk to place those corporate orders, (rather than your Android phone or Atari) that you might still be running that department..... :idea: :grin:

You see, the reality is that monitor sizes are changing at a very rapid pace, not ONLY are they gettting smaller, they are also just as rapidly getting larger. So in the year 2012, we need even more flexibility, certainly not the time to limit site widths to 960 Pixels, or to any set width for that matter!
Cooking with Gas on Version 4.1.2 (But proceeding with caution....)

 
  • NairdaCart
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 18-Jul 11
  • 306 posts

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:13 PM #235

Got to say that as someone who has placed millions of pounds of orders for IT equipment over the last 30 years the very last thing I'd worry about is whether the suppliers site is making the best use of my screen real estate....

Too many people assume that just because someone has a large monitor they run their browsing windows maximised. Mine are set to the equivalent of 1024 resolution despite my screens being 24", 27" and 32".

 

Posted 16 March 2012 - 09:54 PM #236

Too many people assume that just because someone has a large monitor they run their browsing windows maximised. Mine are set to the equivalent of 1024 resolution despite my screens being 24", 27" and 32".


More to the point, you are either blind or require the ability to peer at the screen from last distances.
Yes, you are not the only one, I had a customer purchase on of the largest iMacs I've seen with additional 27" monitor (read: TV) to display 1280x764 resolution.
I've moved on from CS-Cart to WooC******** - If you need anything I can be of little help.

 
  • dustundag
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 24-Mar 08
  • 227 posts

Posted 17 March 2012 - 12:29 AM #237

I have my monitor set to 1920x1080.

 
  • NairdaCart
  • Senior Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 18-Jul 11
  • 306 posts

Posted 17 March 2012 - 11:46 AM #238

More to the point, you are either blind or require the ability to peer at the screen from last distances.
Yes, you are not the only one, I had a customer purchase on of the largest iMacs I've seen with additional 27" monitor (read: TV) to display 1280x764 resolution.


You misunderstand. My monitors are set to 1920x1200 resolution which is their native and therefore best resolution.

What I don't do is maximise the browser window to fill that space. I run several tiled browser windows (the whole idea of Windows after all) and the number of pixels available to a web site in one of those windows is the equivalent of a 1024x768 display. Which is still the maximum size that most web designers aim for.

My point was and is that just because someone has a 1280, 1920, 2560 etc screen you shouldn't assume they're running the browser in the full screen. Very few people I know (other than designers and programmers) work that way.

Not to mention that a huge number of sites, including most of the top e-commerce ones, aim for that resolution as well. It's what most shoppers are used to.

 
  • londonman
  • Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 27-Oct 10
  • 287 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 02:55 AM #239

will this V3 runs too much high on hosting CPU
??

 
  • londonman
  • Member
  • Members
  • Join Date: 27-Oct 10
  • 287 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 04:16 AM #240

You can easily put all your categories vertically in a block as it was in 2.2.4:

  • create a Categories block
  • set its template to Emenu (which is a vertical menu)
  • switch to Content and pick the Full tree filling
This'll do the trick. You can put this block anywhere.

not success yet.
Posted ImagePosted Image