Use BTS or STS or none and why?

[cgchris99]

Which contribution is better or easier to use and why?

 

Thanks for any help

[berkedam]

Please explain first what is wrong with the standaard.

Only than we know what and why you don't like it as-is, what and why you need something else and maybe someone will advise to leave it as-is alltogether, or advises to choose BTS or STS.

BTW I don't like either and do not see the need.

Also, you can change yr shop with a little HTML+CSS tweaking, what's wrong with that?

[Guest]

i am currently deciding between the two systems as well. my reason is that i am a dropshipper and my supplier runs a stock os store. other competitor sites also look the same too. i want to look more professional than them and get more customers.

 

i think my stock store looks a little flat, i'd like some nice 3d buttons, or just generally tart my shop up a bit. is it easy to do with css then? even though i haven't messed around with the layout at all yet i just presumed that css were limited and that the template contributions allowed alittle more flexibility.

[berkedam]

i am currently deciding between the two systems as well. my reason is that i am a dropshipper and my supplier runs a stock os store. other competitor sites also look the same too. i want to look more professional than them and get more customers.

Using STS or BTS like hundreds/thousands of other shops does not make yr shop more professional, it will just look the same as the other shops.

 

i think my stock store looks a little flat, i'd like some nice 3d buttons, or just generally tart my shop up a bit.  is it easy to do with css then? even though i haven't messed around with the layout at all yet i just presumed that css were limited and that the template contributions allowed alittle more flexibility.

 

My principle is: KISS.

Shoppers buy mainly because of good descriptions, lower prices than the competitors, faster and better service and faster shipping times, lower shipping cost.

If your shop looks nice® that's an advantage, use colors/backgrounds that match the goods you sell, use low key layout colors/bg for e.g. gentlemen suits, use "strange" colors for anything wierd and funky that you sell, yr customers expect that.

Do yr customers expect 3D buttons? O.K. use them.

Don't use'm because you like to use 3D buttons.

 

Standard osCommerce shops can be modified to almost not resembling the original, just by modifying some HTML and changing the stylesheet.css.

 

Go visit Google and lookup an online CSS-manual.

Back-up the stylesheet and start changing, you'll be surprised.

Don't like the result, change back or do it different.

 

Templates are also using HTML and CSS to change layout, magic is not involved :D

[trendyfashion]

I use STS and love it. I also do not use the osc stylesheet. I add it to my templates. Break free from the stock block look...use a template system.

[Guest]

Using STS or BTS like hundreds/thousands of other shops does not make yr shop more professional, it will just look the same as the other shops.

Obviously, you've never used the features of either.

 

The primary benefit of either contribution is that they allow you to change the store layout by changing one file as opposed to every catalog file (after installing the contribution). In stock osCommerce, the layout is defined in each page. With either the STS or the BTS, the layout is defined separately from the content specification (i.e. both the login.php and the product_info.php files access the layout from the same place, so you just have to change the single layout specification rather than each file).

 

It is true that just installing either contribution will not make one's site look more professional. However, both allow one to make changes to the layout more easily. By contrast, the default layout does not use div tags to define regions to allow for easy CSS modification. As a result, the default layout does not support all the possible CSS changes (can tweak various things: colors, fonts, backgrounds, etc.). The BTS is better for this, as one of the layouts that comes with it includes added region tags for easier modification. Unfortunately, no one has finished the layout.

 

No, there is no magic involved in the contributions. One still has to make the same modifications as one would without them. They just make it so that the changes can be made in fewer places.

 

Caveats: when upgrading, you will have to reconvert your layout to the new template method. To my mind, this isn't a big issue as you would have to do so anyway. More troublesome is that it is harder to install other contributions with either template contribution.

 

All that said, 3D buttons would not have anything to do with either contribution. Just name the new buttons the same as the old and copy over them. No contribution necessary. Same thing with the header logo. If you like the 3 column layout, header, footer, and column changes will not be affected by either contribution.

 

Cheers,

Matt

[burt]

Having tried both STS and BTS, I prefer BTS. But I would not use any template system (for now) - I would wait until (I believe) MS3 is out, as that will have it's own template system pre-installed as core code.

 

What this means is that many developers (and non-developers) will use this as a standard.

 

As far as I know, there is only a few developers actively using BTS or STS - if they give up, then you are stuck.

 

hth

[berkedam]

Using STS or BTS like hundreds/thousands of other shops does not make yr shop more professional, it will just look the same as the other shops.

Obviously, you've never used the features of either.

Hi Matt,

Thanks for all your valuable posts.

And no, I have with regard to BTS/STS, no use for, nor any benefit from the features they contain :D

 

In stock osCommerce, the layout is defined in each page ...

 

To avoid that readers of these posts get any wrong ideas please allow me to make some neccessary additions to your statement.

 

The visible "shop-structure" consisting of header, boxes, footer etc. in short the "content" of osCommerce one sees on screen visiting a shop(page) is called Markup not layout, as in HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/

and that HTML+PHP/JS is defined in the *.php files.

 

The "layout" (the make-up, the style) being the colors, width, borders, background, font-sizes and all that, is governed by CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) and can be found in the stylesheet.css and again that CSS is defined in the appropriate specs: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-CSS21-20020802/cover.html

 

In principle there are 2 ways to apply the make-up:

one is to do it directly together with the HTML which is the "old" method and rather tricky because osCommerce uses tables which have their own particularities,

the other (present) way, not less tricky because the tables remain, is to use CSS which obviously is the better and preferred method because changing 1 item in the stylesheet has an effect in all the pages at the same time at the same spot.

 

Whether the use of STS/BTS for an osCommerce-developer c.q. designer who is unknow to me is easier than adapting present HTML+CSS I can obviously not answer.

 

The fact that at the moment the present combination of HTML/tables+CSS in osCommerce is far from desirable (and can be improved upon) and will hopefully be corrected with <div>'s (?) in version MS3 or whatever the next stable version will be called.

 

BTW, if the next version still has 3-columns, I do not expect that version to use exclusively <div>'s.

 

But I am quite sure that you know all this already :D

[paulm2003]

John,

I have with regard to BTS/STS, no use for, nor any benefit from the features they contain :D

Since you never installed one of both, and since you don't have a live osC shop, I suppose.

 

Using STS or BTS like hundreds/thousands of other shops does not make yr shop more professional, it will just look the same as the other shops.

Obviously you can make any osC store look the same even with the BTS and STS. And they do look the same most of the time! The difference is that using the STS or BTS it will be much easyer to make it look different and make it look as you like.

 

Whether the use of STS/BTS for an osCommerce-developer c.q. designer who is unknow to me is easier than adapting present HTML+CSS I can obviously not answer.

That's clear, so maybe you better don't answer if you already know yourself you can't answer the question?

 

Hopefully we can get back to the topic now, allthough time's up for me today I'm afraid.

 

Paul

[paulm2003]

I would wait until (I believe) MS3 is out, as that will have it's own template system

Okay,

one more post tonight :)

 

Do you really think MS3 wil have a template system, or maybe only a template structure, like the BTS is!? If it has a template structure you should be able to adapt you BTS templates to it I suppose.

 

And when will MS3 be available? Including new contributions (or old ones adapted for it) which most users will probably need! Nobody knows........

 

Several people advised me to wait for MS3 several months ago, but I am happy I didn't because my shop is live and selling now :) .

[jello1]

I have with regard to BTS/STS, no use for, nor any benefit from the features they contain

 

Hmmm.... why even get into this discussion?...

i use BTS and make a shop look nothing like a standard osc. BTS also allows you to make custom pages.

BTS is a HUGE asset to the OSC comm.... life is better with it... i have developed many many stores with BTS and will continue to use and support it in all aspects.

[Guest]

If structure and presentation are truly separated, there will not be any layout information in the structure. This includes the header/footer/columns arrangement. It is common to use the term layout to refer just to this (e.g. 3 column layout). As you note, it is possible to implement the layout in HTML (partially like osCommerce does or completely). This is deprecated in favor of CSS based layouts. As one can see by looking at projects like csszengarden.com, one CSS layout may use a certain structural area as a header and another might use it as a footer. Another might use both areas to flank the content (like the osCommerce columns). This is because what you call page structure is actually part of the page *layout*.

 

This kind of rearrangement is not possible in the base osCommerce release (where page layout is defined in the HTML). It is also difficult to set borders, widths, etc. in the base code, because many of these characteristics are defined in the HTML (overriding any CSS definition) and need to be changed on *each* page. It is possible in the BTS CSS layout. It is also easier to make changes in the structural markup (i.e. the HTML or XHTML) to make it easier to use the CSS to get the layout that one wants.

 

Someone could presumably do the same thing with STS, but I don't know of such an effort. STS is aimed more at people who would like to use GUI web design programs to setup the layout.

 

Unless Harald has changed his position, osCommerce is not going to go to an XHTML/CSS markup in the current development cycle (2.2). The last time he commented on it, he said that it would make more sense to do that for the next version (probably 3.0).

 

Cheers,

Matt

[burt]

Do you really think MS3 wil have a template system, or maybe only a template structure, like the BTS is!? If it has a template structure you should be able to adapt you BTS templates to it I suppose.

 

Well, therein lies the problem. The Core Team are very "secretive" about future plans...

 

 

And when will MS3 be available? Including new contributions (or old ones adapted for it) which most users will probably need! Nobody knows........

That's true.

 

Several people advised me to wait for MS3 several months ago, but I am happy I didn't because my shop is live and selling now :) .

But it is as easy to make changes without using STS or BTS. And then those shopowners won't have a real problem upgrading/adding new contribs when they need to do so.

 

As an example:

 

Mr Pink uses Osc MS2 with BTS. Mr Black uses Osc MS2. They both have a nice design, which looks nothing like normal...

 

MS3 comes out with a bunch of new code, some security updates etc etc. Also someone releases a contribution that does the washing up for you.

 

Who will be able to use the contribution just by following the install instructions? Who will be able to upgrade to MS3 using the supplied upgrade script. And who will need to wait until a developer using BTS can update it all for them ?

 

The point is, that using BTS adds another layer of code to an already over-coded application. I personally like BTS, it makes things easy (now). But it will make things harder in the future.

 

And there is nothing you can do with BTS that you cannot do with MS2 (with a few small code changes here and there).

 

hth :)

 

Bu

[Guest]

Dear me this really is more of a mindfield than I thought. I'm not that confident with code tweaking at the moment as i have abolutly no prior knowledge of php, i do have a bit of html knowledge but must admit i have a tendancy to do something in word save as an html file and copy and paste the source. For me that is far easier in the short term than breaking a file and searching through for the rogue whitespace or full stop where a semi colon should be.

 

So perhaps i'd be better off altering the css for the moment until i feel a little more confident. at least then i can just replace the one file if i mess it all up.

 

I also want to install other contributions, especially a cross selling module to increase my sales and am concerned if a template contribution will make that harder.

 

The most important thing to a customer is usability and price. If my prices are cheaper and the site is usable enough to allow a quick sale then in theory i should start to get a good customer base. I guess I should put more effort into getting myself to the top of search engines.

[paulm2003]

I personally like BTS, it makes things easy (now).  But it will make things harder in the future.

Personally i like "easy know" :) . And I am not sure about harder in the future, you can be right of course. My shops future does not depend on MS3 :) . If MS3 includes a lot of features I like (so I won't have to install lots of contribs like with MS2), I will install it as a new shop. Then convert the database to MS3 (the difficult part), and finally the easiest part will be to convert my (simple) template to it.

 

And there is nothing you can do with BTS that you cannot do with MS2 (with a few small code changes here and there).

A few small code changes here and there? It isn't like that for me, even only to strugle through the nested tables felt like a disaster to me.

 

And are you able to easyly switch templates and create any new infobox template within minutes without the BTS?

Working on several templates now you can show them to anyone you like anywhere you like. Changing the default to a new template (thinking about themes like "Chrismas" or "Happy New Year"), you or someone else made, only requires you to fill in the name and click!

Also when you are selling you osC services to others, you can show them several templates, with different layout/ colors/fonts/images. You only need one osC2.2MS2+BTS install +templates and a internet connection.

 

To answer the original question I would say:

1) If you like the current osC design (and the Copyright notice included) and the nested tables, don't use the STS or BTS.

 

2) If you want to do some easy changes to the main looks use the STS, it does not intefere with most other contributions

 

3) If you want the most design control without editting all files for every little design change, or like the templates switch, or hate nested tables (that's my main reason) use the BTS.

[burt]

And are you able to easyly switch templates and create any new infobox template within minutes without the BTS?

 

Yes! All by the use of .css and 2 extra lines of code for the style switcher...

 

Working on several templates now you can show them to anyone you like anywhere you like. Changing the default to a new template (thinking about themes like "Chrismas" or "Happy New Year"), you or someone else made, only requires you to fill in the name and click!

 

All I need do is one change in application_top.php to reference a new stylesheet...2 lines of code for this...

 

So I have an MS2, that can do everything the BTS can, but I won't have potential problems into the future when I need to upgrade...

 

But for anyone reading, the BTS is a good tool to make quick adjustments to your site. I like it, but I don't use it as I don't want my customers coming back to me saying "I installed XYZ contribution on this shop you built me and it doesn't work/look right". Etc etc..

[paulm2003]

And are you able to easyly switch templates and create any new infobox template within minutes without the BTS?

Yes! All by the use of .css and 2 extra lines of code for the style switcher.............

................So I have an MS2, that can do everything the BTS can, but I won't have potential problems into the future when I need to upgrade...

Hi Burt,

 

What I don't understand is: you obviously can't change the osC2.2 looks much (only some colors, width settings, and fonts) by only changing the stylesheet. So if you say you are able to change it all by the stylesheet (or almost all) you must have altered lots of files and replaced the tables by div's for example. Since a lot of contributions are created to fit into the osC table code these contributions also can't be compatible with your fully CSS osC. I know you will be able to install the contribs, but how can others do it?

Am I missing something here or?

 

And is your full CSS version available for download somewhere? We now know you have done it, but what is the benefit for others to know that you have but they don't? I'm sure most osC users can't convert osC to CSS like you did (certainly not within at least several months of hard work and above average CSS knowledge).

 

Another general BTS remark:

Not all contributions are more difficult to install with the BTS!

* several are more difficult (since you can't just overwrite BTS files, unless the contrib is written for the BTS)

* a lot are the same (all admin contribs for example)

* a few are easyer (written for the BTS)

* some become obsolete if you know a little HTML/CSS (like: contributions to center a shop or change colors on one infobox etc.)

 

Off course the BTS is not ideal. But unless Burt, the osC team or someone else, makes something available for download that can do the same or something like it, within the same amount of time/effort, I"ll keep using it.

[burt]

you obviously can't change the osC2.2 looks much (only some colors, width settings, and fonts) by only changing the stylesheet. So if you say you are able to change it all by the stylesheet (or almost all) you must have altered lots of files and replaced the tables by div's for example.

 

All I have done on my version of MS2, is add a few more stylesheet calls, give each infobox an ID. A change in the header and footer to allow me to set width. Note that this is still full of nested tables etc etc - but it allows me to quickly define style. Now I can control my site by the stylesheet. It doesn't take a <div> to be able to use .css, a <td> will do just as well...

 

Makes sense now ?

 

I do have a pure .css version of Oscommerce about 90% complete, but it is difficult to find the time to finish it up, apply patches, keep it updated and so on and so forth. It validates xhtml strict, here is the source code for conditions.php:

 

<?php
 require('includes/application_top.php');
 require(DIR_WS_LANGUAGES . $language . '/' . FILENAME_CONDITIONS);
 $breadcrumb->add(NAVBAR_TITLE, tep_href_link(FILENAME_CONDITIONS));
?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=<?php echo CHARSET; ?>" />
<title><?php echo TITLE; ?></title>
<base href="<?php echo (($request_type == 'SSL') ? HTTPS_SERVER : HTTP_SERVER) . DIR_WS_CATALOG; ?>" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="<?php echo WHICH_STYLESHEET; ?>" />
</head>
<body>
 <!-- body //-->
   <div id="container">
 <div id="banner"><!-- header //--><?php require(DIR_WS_INCLUDES . 'header.php'); ?><!-- header_eof //--></div>
     <div id="sidebar-a"><!-- left_navigation //--><?php require(DIR_WS_INCLUDES . 'column_left.php'); ?><!-- left_navigation_eof //--></div>
           <div id="sidebar-b"><!-- right_navigation //--><?php require(DIR_WS_INCLUDES . 'column_right.php'); ?><!-- right_navigation_eof //--></div>
       <div id="content">
         <div id="pageheading"><h1><?php echo HEADING_TITLE; ?></h1></div>
         <div id="pagecontent"><?php echo TEXT_INFORMATION; ?></div>
         <div id="pagecontinue"><?php echo '<a href="' . tep_href_link(FILENAME_DEFAULT) . '">' . tep_image_button('button_continue.gif', IMAGE_BUTTON_CONTINUE) . '</a>'; ?></div>
       </div>
 <div id="footer"><!-- footer //--><?php require(DIR_WS_INCLUDES . 'footer.php'); ?><!-- footer_eof //--></div>
   </div>
 <!-- body_eof //-->
</body>
</html>
<?php require(DIR_WS_INCLUDES . 'application_bottom.php'); ?>

 

I believe this is the way that Oscommerce should go. Forget templates and a templating system. Take it to pure .css and then it is relatively simple to make stores look like the examples over at csszengarden.com

 

But in the meantime I agree that BTS is a good tool, but it is as easy not to use BTS as it is to use it...

[paulm2003]

It doesn't take a <div> to be able to use .css, a <td> will do just as well...

Makes sense now ?

Ok Burt now I understand what you ment,

thanks for the explanation,

 

My main problem with <td>'s is that you can't position them. It can, for example, be very easy to postion some of the infoboxes anywhere on the screen. Also positioning <div>'s which reside in <td>'s isn't very reliable I am afraid. Other than that I don't have many problems with a simple table layout (one two three tables for layout max).

The osC "infinite nested tables" on the other hand :(

[Brenden]

A couple pros to using BTS that have been missed:

 

1) Easily change site wide layout. - You can go to a 1, 2, 3, 4 column layout quickly and easily. Site width is easily changed.

2) Easily change site section layout. - If you want the checkout pages not to have any side columns but the rest of the store have the standard 3 columns this is easily done.

 

The biggest problem with using BTS (and STS I assume) is that it is non standard code. Upgrades to newer versions of oscommerce will be difficult.

 

I believe this is the way that Oscommerce should go.  Forget templates and a templating system.  Take it to pure .css and then it is relatively simple to make stores look like the examples over at csszengarden.com

 

I agree that the goal of all web applications should be to have seperation of content and design through css. I would disagree with not having a template structure, because as powerful as css is, you need a level of control over the HTML outputted. For example try doing the two things mentioned above with just css. It can be done, but that isnt the right way to do it.

[Crisp]

Hello guys

 

I've installed STS an a test shop a few days ago. I's say it's a step in the right direction.

At the time I installed it I new there was an other Template Contribuition somewhere but I guess I've seen STS first ...

 

After reading this thread I noticed that nobody said anything about STS.

Can anyone tell me what's the difference betwewn STS and BTS ?

 

Cristian

[Guest]

STS is aimed to allow you to template your shop with an actual HTML file. With the BTS, you are still using PHP code in the equivalent file (as well as the HTML). Both allow you to change the common layout of all the files at once.

 

Hth,

Matt

[jimgun]

I'm working on a new site where osCommerce will not resemble it's former self. I've found the PHP code a time-saver... It really helps to know all PHP, HTML, and CSS...

-

That's the great thing about open-source code; design as you see fit with the help of the original source. I do and I hope others too, will sumbit code rewrites to the community!

[paulm2003]

Both allow you to change the common layout of all the files at once.

This makes it sound like they are almost the same, which isn't the case. One of the differences is, that this is the only feature of the STS (tell me if I am wrong) and it is one of the many features of the BTS.

Also the BTS allows you to use PHP within your template(s), the STS does not.

 

Since basic PHP is so simple to learn, and the possibilities are unlimited, why avoid using it?

[paulm2003]

Hi Brenden,

 

thank you very much for creating the BTS !!! It makes costumizing and using osC much easyer and more fun to me and many others!

(hope you like the small updates a little bit :) )

 

The biggest problem with using BTS (and STS I assume) is that it is non standard code.  Upgrades to newer versions of oscommerce will be difficult.

I agree of course. But if you modify your shops layout heavily (like you can do quite easy using the BTS) without the BTS, upgrading won't be easy as well I suppose.