[Closed] FEEDBACK ON BETA of v1.5.5

[stellarweb]

I am not referring to how they look after you put a sort order in... I am referring to the generic, out of the box (pun intended) listing order with everything set at 0. I like Chad's idea about maybe putting a link to sort alphabetically for those with OCD like me!

...and it would annoy me no end if they layout boxes were not listed in the order I have set for their sort order, which mirror how they display on the site. layout boxes I am not using I set to right column and a really high sort order number to move them to the bottom of the listing, so the only ones I have turned on are listed first in the order I want them in.

[balihr]

The desktop version of this template is indeed responsive out of box.

No, it's not. It's mobile-friendly, just as if it were using a separate mobile template. If it were responsive, it would have at least a basic navigation menu when browser window is reduced. If it hides the top menu, and doesn't show a replacement unless a mobile device is detected, it doesn't quite fit the term "responsive". After all, why hide the main one then?

For development purposes and "the average user" their are pretty obvious and strategically placed links on the home page to switch views and most modern browsers now provide UA switching.

I've seen quite a few users doing a "split view" while managing orders or handling customers on the phone. Left half of the screen is showing the admin, and the right side is showing the front end. Some people don't maximize their windows (for whatever reasons) and this is where problems MIGHT occur.

I personally think instead of changing the code from UA to CSS media queries a admin switch might be more sufficient to allow one to choose whether or not they want the mobile menu to display in desktop view.

Uhm... But why? How does the store owner know if the customer will resize browser window?

Can anyone please tell me why it would be so wrong to hide the mobile menu instead of using the UA trigger? I'm not asking for a core file change, just a simple something that might be of real use... And, except for a 0.01 seconds extra load time, what are the downsides of my idea?

Just an FYI, this template isn't based on Foundation at all.

Yeah, I noticed that AFTER posting, but who cares... I took a real quick look, saw it wasn't bootstrap and said foundation because I remember reading somewhere it was gonna use foundation... Irrelevant...

IMHO, the only downside is the insignificant extra server load, whilst the potential usability really does exist. The only thing that really surprises me here is that no one is giving any cons for the idea, but are still treating it as a bad one and refusing to accept it. But, OK, so be it - I won't push this any more since I'm not even gonna be using it, I was just trying to help the community with a constructive idea...

[rbarbour]

Your point of view is valid but circumstantial.

Not having a "mobile button" in the viewport of the desktop version doesn't discredit it from being responsive. Again my #2cents as well as all the Google docs on responsive web design.

Maybe the idea isn't being rejected at all but the way it was presented is why its not being even addressed. Instead of criticizing what "should" be in your opinion a mere suggestion would have been taken and responded to with a more constructive answer.

[DrByte]

Another question: Looking through /zc_install/sql/updates/mysql_update_zencart_155.sql (which is a utf8 w/o BOM encoded file), there are a couple of updates of the form:

UPDATE countries set countries_name = 'Åland Islands' where countries_iso_code_3 = 'ALA';
UPDATE countries set countries_name = 'Réunion' where countries_iso_code_3 = 'REU';
UPDATE countries set countries_name = "Côte d'Ivoire" where countries_iso_code_3 = 'CIV';

Won't those non-ASCII (and utf8-encoded) country names get mangled if the store-being-upgraded uses a latin1 collation?

Yes. All the more incentive for them to convert their db to utf8 ;)

[DrByte]

admin/attributes_controller.php
header not updated to reflect Changed in ZC 1.5.5.

(FYI, Let me know if I need to stop identifying these because some other "search" or "final edit" is going to be done for such "changes".)

Yes, we plan to do a mass "file stamping" before release, for changed files.

[DrByte]

Within the classic_responsive/jscript directory, there are a bunch of minimized javascript files

1. jscript_matchHeight.min.js
2. jquery.mmenu.min.all.js
3. jquery.mmenu.fixedelements.min.js

Having the unminimized versions, too, will be a big help ... just in case anything "goes funky".

If you do a search for the jscripts you will find the links to their sites which have un minimized versions of the scripts.

Thanks,

Anne

That's all well-and-good, but other than the jquery.mmenu.min.all.js, there's no version number in the minimized script. It's certainly going to make life easier to debug in the future if the unminimized versions were simply part of the distribution.

I have just submitted the un minimized versions of the scripts to be included in the distribution ;)

Thanks,

Anne

Now included.

[DrByte]

includes\templates\template_default\templates\tpl_account_history_info_default.p hp

...
within a for loop, which could cause a validation issue:
Line 42 changed from:

      echo '<ul id="orderAttribsList">';

To the more acceptable:

      echo '<ul class="orderAttribsList">';

Haven't looked to see if the CSS changed accordingly or needed to (from #orderAttribsList to .orderAttribsList)...

In v155 it's using a class ... so, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

[mc12345678]

Yes, we plan to do a mass "file stamping" before release, for changed files.

In v155 it's using a class ... so, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

In some regards related to the above, because the header of the file was not updated for the beta, I was 1) flagging a "change" that was not yet identified as a change. And 2) indicating that there is a possible change to css commands necessary for this version. Figured if I didn't get to doing the review, maybe someone else would. While a minor impact, it does also mean that other templates to be used with this version of ZC may need some minor tweaking to account for that change.

I would say, if anything that perhaps documentation of the template "flag" change would help other perspective template developers. I know, get too detailed and will miss something, too broad and the masses are unhappy. :)

[mc12345678]

Duplicate Post Deleted. Intermittent slow internet connection. Sorry.

[DrByte]

Also, great that can navigate away from the home page to do other things, though if "needed" to verify home page information and the information was not available for the initial setup, then there does not appear to be a way to "set aside" the initial setup wizard to see how the home page is "coming along". Maybe set the information as a clickable link in the top of the screen (message) after initial display perhaps after initial display per login? (SESSION)

If you're complaining that one must fill in the settings in order to see the normal home page, then yes, that is intentional ... so that you do fill in that info.
If you're asking for a way to "let someone else, like the storeowner, fill that in later", then you can simply go into the Configuration->My Store area and blank out the store name or the store owner ... and the wizard will then automatically display again on the home page, prompting for setup.