eCommerce News & Resources by oscommerceuniversity.com

During my time at Chain Reaction (now known as Chain Reaction Ecommerce, Inc.), I created conceptual design for several new major system components.   One of those elements is the CRE Loaded Forms and Survey System (FSS).  Now present in the 6.3 and 6.4 cart releases,  FSS suffers from a few serious defects in usability.

The most egregious problem is a lack of documentation.   This is complicated by an absence of  data checking and feedback features and sub-optimal work flow setup in what is, admittedly, a pretty immature product.   Still, there is a good deal of potential in this underwhelming initial deployment, if you know where to look.

Lets start with a quick overview of the system as seen from the Admin tool.  Within the new top level “Forms and Survey” menu, there are 4 options.  Those options are Form Builder, Post Manager, Configuration and Backup.  The configuration and backup functionality are fairly self explanatory.  The form builder is used to build forms and the post manager is used to view post results for various forms.  There are a few gotchas in there, chiefly due to the extension of the terminology to include the term “surveys”, but we’ll ignore those for now.

The form builder looks somewhat like a standard osCommerce like  category / object management page.  On the first page you see various Forms and Survey “Folders”.   Unlike other folder or category structures in the cart, this system does not support any descriptive text or meta tags.   Which makes providing any compelling reason for a visitor to navigate further rather difficult at best without using either the Content Director System , RCI object insertions or direct edits of the content template for the forms system.  Fortunately (if you can call it that), CDS is included on all distributions which include the Forms and Survey System.

Another oddity you will notice right away is that one mandatory folder already exists.  This is entitled the “System Folder” and it holds two subfolders which equate to specific cart locations – Account and Order.  Forms added here will appear during the Account Creation and Checkout (or Order Creation) processes and are of a special type – the “Survey”.  It seems that the difference between a “form” and a “survey” is that survey “questions” are rendered within an existing form, while forms are complete forms with their own set of form tags under at least some circumstances.  You can see this by viewing the create_account.php page which shows the inputs associated with the account survey.   The FSS inputs appear in the “Options” section after all others have been rendered but before the password input fields- as part of the “create_account” form, as you can see in a source view.  Its a rather clumsy addition as is, but does offer some additional capabilities without too much silliness visible to the customer.  The order form however, is not so nice.

Forms can also be seen using the fss_forms_detail.php page.   The order form url can be formed by adding “fss_forms_detail.php?fPath=1&forms_id=2″ after your B2B installation URL.    You’ll see two form inputs – test file upload and Please rate your experience.  Obviously, you won’t want each customer to be offered a chance to load up your storage with miscellaneous files in most cases.  So, be sure to turn this input off by toggling the status icon in the admin.  (FSS -> Forms Builder -> System Folder -> Order -> “test file upload” is the path to the control).

My next post on this will go into more detail about how to use the Forms Builder, and what capabilities are offered by the configuration values.  But, before we get into those, it would be helpful to get into the details of what HTML forms are and how they work.  Here are a few helpful resources:

HTML 4.01 Foms standards

HTML  5 Forms Standards

HTML Form Tutorial at w3Schools.com

An older, but more detailed tutorial at htmlgoodies.com

Based on these, and other resources, I’ll outline how to use FSS to build a complete form…

The osCMax project recently released an updated version of osCMax which removes the File Manager and Define Languages tools due to unspecified security concerns.

Details can be found in the osCMax forums – http://www.oscmax.com/forums/announcement-discussions/20984-security-notice-oscmax-2-0-4-released.html and in the osCMax Blog – http://www.oscmax.com/node/341

Few details are available but this flaw may also affect CRE Loaded and other osCommerce derivatives…

In his post on CRE Loaded Clutter , Chris at oshelpers.com describes FDMS as inessential clutter in the course of presenting what is essentially an explanation of why CRE Loaded 6.3 is so overpriced for the feature set.

I beg to differ on this specific point.

Perhaps, as the system designer responsible for FDMS and the Chief Operating Officer of the firm which sold the system I have a few biases of my own here.  Download related issues in CRE Loaded accounted for a respectable portion of system complaints before FDMS development.  The existing download system lacked some pretty obvious marketing tools and capabilities.  The reporting systems sucked.  Those issues were just about enough by themselves.  Add to them the negative impact of the “Zero Weight Guessing Game” in the checkout and shipping routines which affect 100% of all cart users and the development of  FDMS  and its eventual inclusion into the core distributions was completely justified.  The market demand was also more like 20% than the 0.2% Chris estimates off the cuff.    The system also made it a lot easier for shops with physical products to offer product related downloads such as instruction manuals, user guides and brochures  — pushing the number of potential benefactors even higher.  The list of reasons why FDMS is both essential and “A Good Thing” goes on and on.   Inessential is not justified here – though it is certainly fair to say the system is  over-priced when considered against other needs clammering for attention in the CRE Loaded code base.

CRE Loaded actually did a splendid job of selecting contributions for inclusion in the cart up to the 6.2 release.  In fact, it came very close to continuing that streak in the 6.2 release itself.  Ugly story there that I might tell someday, but not today. Fact remains that the top features in any CRE Loaded distribution can still be found in the top downloads of all time for osCommerce contributions and most of them remain in the top 50 if not the top 10 out of over 5000 candidates.

What Chris missed,  ignored  or chose not to  communicate there is that beginning with 6.2, CRE Loaded was no longer to be a “loading project” but a development project. Not a secret at all.  I certainly mentioned it in the CRE Loaded forums as I drove development in a new direction and I am pretty sure Chris was there to see it.    It was the right course then and a better one today.

The problem is that Chainreaction has an issue with steering a course that  calls on building a development company.  A problem with any course that relies on providing value to the community for which the community feels a need to pay.   The fact that so much clutter of any type remains is a reflection of this problem as much as anything.   That 107 of 114  feature requests made over the past 3 years remain open, many of them unanswered much less un-implemented is a clear sign of the weakness of Chainreaction Ecommerce ‘s  commitment to meet community needs.

In an unpublished article I started on October 15, I stated “Kerry Watson’s new article was posted today on ecommerceguide.com. You can find it at: http://www.ecommerce-guide.com/news/news/article.php/3777841 . It is entitled, “Can Iozzia Get the CRE Loaded Love Back?”. The short answer is no.”

While I still think I blew off a bit more steam than I want to publicize so quickly after Chain Reaction’s devastating implosion (or indeed – at all), events since then have made me reconsider addressing the issue in this venue though not the conclusion of my initial paragraph.  First off was the management of the all too expected eruption of steam following Sal’s “grand return” and the unbanning of a number of long time community members who were neither happy at being banned, or impressed with claims of change.  One of the most vociferous was Michael DesMarais of Supreme Center Hosting .

Read More

But is it? There seems plenty of reason to doubt whether the approach is either new or open source. My original concept when proposing CRE Loaded commercialization was to charge a standard fee per copy distributed with a 30 to 90 day support window, following which support could be obtained on a contract basis. Revenues would be further augmented by internally developed documentation and education offerings made available both directly to the public on Chain Reaction’s own site, and via a distribution network of existing community vendors. The value of the software would be increased by ongoing addition of new features designed and built in house, and refactoring of the core code to bring it into alignment with the current PHP and MySQL feature sets and changes in the security environment.

What has emerged appears to be little more than SaaS without the second S. Here is why.

The “manual” posted on the latest incarnation of their website is a thinly disguised knock off of Kerry Watson’s 6.2 Users Manual. They may argue that there are few other ways to state the programs use, and that just may be. But why can’t the ‘designers’ of the software do any better? They should for example, have access to and include information on input formats and boundaries, and systemic capabilities and limitations which are not readily available to the non-programmer. Such information is not, as of the date of this writing, available in their “users guide”. Their “educational program” consists of a page buried 3-5 levels deep in their site which asks the users to inform Chain Reaction of their educational needs so that content can be developed. So much for educational and documentation support.

Their new releases are “subscription” based. But there is some room for question as to just what users would be subscribing. What does Chain Reaction deliver in return for its charges?

Read More

Once more the Evil Over Lords Imperial Storm Troopers (AKA Chain Reaction Ecommerce)  strikes a blow for Open Source excellence at their customers expense.  How you might ask?  As well you should.  The answer does yeild a certain amount of amusement, if one’s sense of humer partakes of a certain twisted bent.

This morning, CRE Loaded store users began drawing to my attention the sudden onset of error messages from Internet Explorer whenever an Admin page was rendered.  The error noted that some of the page content was subject to a security certificate flaw.  On examination of the pages, we found the expected suspect.  Once more Chain Reaction has used its 175,000 users as alarm clocks to remind them to renew a security certificate.  This is, I believe, at 3 years running.  Is this now company tradition?  Rumors abound of a pool for next years renewal date..

Security Certificate Expired.

In the meantime, if you have better things to do with your time than call CRE support to remind them of a job they should already have done (and who doesn’t), or you’re one of those clued in people who know better than to simply click “accept this content” whenever you encounter this error (and we sincerely hope you are – bad habit!), you might want to join us in the Open Source University Forums to find out how to remove the offending links from YOUR CRE Loaded cart.

Recently a blog entry by Anna Bergman entitled, “Why Would you Want Cre Loaded for your E-store?” was brought to my attention.  Not only for its content, but due to the nature of a reply to that post.

First, lets address Anna’s content.  She notes that:

“CRE Loaded currently has 39 additional modules over and above the many that are already included in the default OsCommerce installation. CRE Loaded also offers powerful shopping cart solutions in both the free and paid editions. CRE Loaded has a better template system and its “affiliate manager” allows you to specify the per sale payment percentage rate for each of your affiliate accounts as well as providing a tiered structure that is based on sales performance.”

This is not quite the truth.  CRE Loaded contains considerably MORE than 39 additional modules, and even more modifications to that module set intended to make it more powerful and convenient than its stock osCommerce parent.  Further, it has had a large number of security related modifications added.  I’m proud of the work I carried out first as Project Manager, then as Chief Operating Officer, and happy to be recognized as a founder of CRE Loaded. Read More

Recently, I was asked to explain how I thought any company could protect their brand when releasing software under the General Public License. This shortly after I encountered a post stating CRE Loaded “Never made it clear” the software was released under GPL. The second assertion is quickly dealt with. Provided the user can read basic English – the licensing is posted in the footer of every CRE Loaded distribution as follows:

If this does not make it clear the observer is either illiterate, stupid or criminal and hoping his potential victims suffer those conditions.

Frankly, I don’t understand how this long after the initial GPL release anyone could not understand it’s implications. Probably the most important fact about the GPL is that is is a license. Let me say that again – slowly: the General Public License is a LICENSE.

A license is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “ c: a grant by the holder of a copyright or patent to another of any of the rights embodied in the copyright or patent short of an assignment of all rights”. Parse that slowly if you will. “A grant by the holder of a copyright or patent” – the developing authority holds either a copyright, a patent, or both to their software. “short of an assignment of all rights” – the developing authority retains rights to the software. There. Was that so hard?

So, the question is, to what rights to do the developers retain ownership and/or control. The nature of software licensing should make it pretty clear that those rights include the copyright – which the GPL allows them to enforce; and the rights to trademarks, service marks and other tools used to brand the software. Given that anyone in the software industry in general and ecommerce in particular deal with licensing every day by now we should understand this. A huge percentage of all computers sold around the world carry with them a Microsoft software license. This is a given. Yet no one doubts that that license allows them to use the software, but does not give them a right to call themselves Microsoft, claim a partnership with Microsoft, use the Microsoft Logo on their own products or in any other way represent themselves as being a part of Microsoft.

What the osCommerce Project has to say on these issues can be found here, in their own statements on Trademarks and Copyrights. They are well worth reading. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that they should be required reading of anyone who installs the software. They are easy enough to understand, but equally easy to forget. I am thankful to have been given reason to review them – and plan some site modifications as a result. I want it to be clearly understood that this site is about all Open Source eCommerce, not just osCommerce. Nor is there any connection between this site and the osCommerce project. We are not reviewed or controlled by the project, and other than their clearly identified RSS feeds all content here is copyrighted under terms substantially similar if not identical to those posted by the osCommerce Project.

Their position boils down to normal usage and common sense – materials are copyrighted by the producers, some rights are granted them as the site owner, all software contributed is donated under the same GPL which applies to osCommerce itself, and their trademarks remain theirs. This is as it should be, and not substantially different than many other Open Source projects. Another interesting document which can be found on the osCommerce project site is their Open Source Definition

The first three items are of particular interest here. To quote their document, making fair use, those items are:

• Free Redistribution
  No restrictions are placed on parties from selling of giving away the software.
• Source Code Availability
  The software must include source code and must also allow for binary distributions when there is a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code.
• Derived Works
  Modifications and derived works must be allowed, and must be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

So, getting back to the remaining question of how branding can be protected while the software is given away.

The pertinent GPL Version 2 clause in my opinion is section 7 (aka the “Liberty or Death” clause”). It says the following:

“7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License”So – you can’t stop the software from being given away. But, ” It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims;” Brands and trademarks are property. They are subject to many property rights both implicit and explicit – though these vary significantly from one jurisdiction to the next (one reason there is a GPL 3.x). They existed when the first GPL was written – and this clause has the significance of requiring any further distribution for sale to be clearly identified as “Derived Works“.

So, you can modify commercial GPL software, you can give it away, or sell it. But you legally, morally or ethically cannot do so while claiming to be the original author.

There remain other issues, but from an ethical if not legal standpoint there is no real obstacle to commercializing Open Source software. In fact, there are many issues which push for it – the need or desire of business operators to be able to obtain support, or to acquire a version of the software which is less unstable than the free releases being just two good examples. More on those in a future posting.

Well, here we are, the end of March. Busy month, this one. The site has been migrated to a new VPS which should offer significant improvements in performance over the previous shared hosting account.

In addition, we have added new software, including this blog and a new Wiki. This in response to two things. First, my discovery that Moodle’s blogging tool was particularly unfriendly about exposing content to the public. Second, we are launching some public development activities and looking at optimal tools to use for community based agile development. We will be posting design documents in the Wiki, and conducting discussion in the forums – a live exercise in Extreme Programming methodology which should benefit the community as a whole.

I’ve gotten quite a workout in templating during the past month or two. For various reasons I’ve templated installations of Account Lab Plus, WhoIS Cart and WHM Complete Solution as well as 3 CRE Loaded based sites. Not my favorite thing to do, or my strongest suite in the eCommerce department, but it has been a good learning experience. The notes resulting from the CRE Loaded templates is going into a Technical Report on ATS Template construction. They are rather rough at the moment, so it may take another month or so before I’m satisfied enough to release it publicly, but it is coming along. I still have several CRE Loaded sites to template, and intend to skin WordPress, SMF and Moodle before finishing this out. By the time I’m done, I’ll have the entire osCommerce University site re-themed around a common layout.

I’m also writing notes and collecting research materials on the components of Magento, a very impressive addition to the Open Source eCommerce field. Especially exciting is their inclusion of a Data Flow Management systems. FINALLY – a shopping cart project that understands the importance of being able to migrate data!

Written for PHP 5, using PDO MySQL and the Zend Framework, this is a different animal with an impressive list of features even though it is only in the 0.9 version. I am looking forward to taking this puppy out for a test drive.

by David Graham.

Well, it has been awhile since I posted here, and a progress report is way
overdue, so here goes.

First, I’ve completed our first FLASH tutorial on CRE Loaded. This
movie covers installation, and will be followed within a week on
equivalent material covering osC Max (60% done), Zen Cart and
osCommerce (each about 10% complete).

WINK has been a real blessing. This free Open Source Flash tutorial
creator (found at http://debugmode.com) manages screen captures in
a variety of ways which make capturing tutorials a relatively quick
and easy task. Additional tasks such as affects for video markup
are a bit more involved, but the package is definitely well worth
investigation!

I have a pretty good sized number of tutorials to create before I
can launch a full course, but I expect to be able to move more
quickly as I get the first dozen or so created.