How would you do this?

[guest2013-1]

I'm busy with a CMS for a client who'd like to (for some products) retail them (with pricing etc) but for (most) others, only display information.

Now her previous developer made a horrible CMS, riddled with bugs and making updating the website a task in itself. She would like to be able to basically create a page where she can put (for example) a range of shampoo from Organics on there. Showcasing it with one header image for example and write product descriptions for it right there. This would then be 1 "product" but show case an entire range.

However, (continuing with the example), Organics also makes Conditioners. So she'd have to create a separate page for that... I guess it's a bad example, but basically, what it boils down to is:

Do I create a section for her where she captures products PER product (as some products are unique in itself by design) and let her create the odd few product "range" pages or do I keep it "per page" for product ranges, and if she'd like to capture individual products, to have it create as a seperate page each time?

I'm trying to make it very simple for her to update, so don't worry about the front end, I'm more worried in making it as simplistic as possible so a 3 year old can do it.

I was thinking, allow product ranges to be created (for products she's not going to retail online) and if she does want to retail them online, to then create products per product range with pricing etc:

Product Range [1-Many] Products

Then she can capture product ranges to her hearts content, and once she adds individual products for sale, it will automatically show up in the Retail section?

 

[davemc]

Your question is a bit of a mumble.
She has to be able to:

1. Capture individual products in their full glory with all the required detail.
2. Put them together into multiple shared categories. e.g. Hair Care, Shower Products, Organics products.
3. Optionally group them together in an article that links to the individual products.

She has to learn to do the 3 steps, there is no way around that.

 

[FarligOpptreden]

davemc's suggestion sounds viable. She would HAVE to capture the detailed product first and then associate "categories" or "tags" with the product. What I might suggest though, is for the product ranges (articles?) to have a self-referencing table so that the front-end could regard a range / article as a product as well...

 

[dequadin]

I think a combination of davemc's and FarligOpptreden's answers is definitly best. Grouping by product range or category.

So you can have something like this:

 - Hair Care Products
      - Shampoo's 
          - Organics S 1
          - Organics S 2
          - Pantene S 1
          - Pantene S 2
      - Conditioners
          - Organics C 1
          - Pantene C 1

AND 
- Organics Products   
    - Organics S 1
    - Organics S 2
    - Organics C 1

- Pantene Products
    - Pantene S 1
    - Pantene S 2
    - Pantene C 1

I would also have the following workflow, allowing the user to create a new category/product range while adding product details. And not force then to first create the category/product range and then capture product details.

1. Capture product detail
2. Add to existing category OR (Create new category/sub-category) then add
3. Add to product range OR Create new product range then add

 

[guest2013-1]

Thanks for the feedback guys, will have to think about it for a bit.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

I've found that trying to make it too user friendly is like a squirrel farting against thunder.

I've developed and maintain our companies inbound callcenter and none of our agents have ICDLS ... so I made it very, no extremely user friendly. The app ended up being frigg'n useless and impossible to add new features.

I'm now redoing the whole thing. It will require some training on my part and a manual or wiki, but at least it is (the parts I've redone) functional and gets the job done. Functional apps are more valuable at the end of the day.

 

[guest2013-1]

I've found that trying to make it too user friendly is like a squirrel farting against thunder.

I've developed and maintain our companies inbound callcenter and none of our agents have ICDLS ... so I made it very, no extremely user friendly. The app ended up being frigg'n useless and impossible to add new features.

I'm now redoing the whole thing. It will require some training on my part and a manual or wiki, but at least it is (the parts I've redone) functional and gets the job done. Functional apps are more valuable at the end of the day.

lol, that's why I start with my database and work from there. Then if something in the UI (front or back) needs to change I can do so with ease

 

[WiT8litZ]

Zen-cart the thing?

 

[guest2013-1]

Zen-cart the thing?

I don't use pre-programmed off the shelf products for my clients. I have a tailored solution catering to their needs.

I've had the "lets use something off the shelf" argument, and instead of listening to me they went ahead and chose VPASP. Which I'm still (15 months later) customizing a decrepped system for them at cost to them over over 100k and running...

No thanks. I've done this before. I've seen ****ups like this before (and have fixed it before)

Each to his own, there is no shopping cart in the world that has everything a business needs as businesses are unique, and one shopping cart that claims it has everything is too complex to customize or understand for the client in the first place.

KISS

 

[FarligOpptreden]

Yup. That's why I generally shy away from open-source CMS packages for something more than a personal blog.

 

[dequadin]

Yup. That's why I generally shy away from open-source CMS packages for something more than a personal blog.

What about DotNetNuke? It believe it's what StackOverlow runs on...

 

[FarligOpptreden]

Isn't StackOverflow built on ASP.NET MVC?

EDIT: I'm still not much of a fan of CMS packages though - the best .NET ones being DNN and Umbraco (that I've seen so far). You can always build a custom app for a client that outperforms a CMS package in every way, whilst specifically adhering to the client's requirements.

 

[Kloon]

Have you tried using OSCommerce? It has all kinds of addons developed by the community and its not a nitemare to implement.

 

[dequadin]

Isn't StackOverflow built on ASP.NET MVC?

My bad, I went back to the blog I got that from and misread this comment:

In fact, without DNN, we would probably be out of business because our developments costs would be too high

As being part of the article Oops that what you get for having to many RSS feeds and skim reading...

Yip it is actually ASP.NET MVC...

 

[FarligOpptreden]

Isn't StackOverflow built on ASP.NET MVC?

My bad, I went back to the blog I got that from and misread this comment:

In fact, without DNN, we would probably be out of business because our developments costs would be too high

As being part of the article Oops that what you get for having to many RSS feeds and skim reading...

Yip it is actually ASP.NET MVC...

*tsk* *tsk*

...improper post-quoting as well!

EDIT 1: See how it messed up my perfectly valid quote as well?
EDIT 2: There, MUCH better...

 

[dequadin]

Where what?

 

[FarligOpptreden]

You fixed it after I quoted and I fixed it in my quote... You know, that first [ quote ] that should've been [ / quote ] and that stray [ / code ] that should've been [ / quote ] as well.

 

[dequadin]

You fixed it after I quoted and I fixed it in my quote... You know, that first [ quote ] that should've been [ / quote ] and that stray [ / code ] that should've been [ / quote ] as well.

Lies all lies.....