You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ofbiz.apache.org by Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk> on 2007/01/03 11:15:19 UTC
What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
a good kicking. But here goes anyway
First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
sweet I just had to find out more.
The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
be monumental. The next big leap forward.
I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
(what version of Windows ever was?)
I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
no-brainer!
So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
really do.
Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
the building in minutes.
The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
the people rather than the code.
Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
fixed already?
From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
par for that kind of course to me.
So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
But how much value, and how much cost?
If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
whole machine.
Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
on exactly these issues.
"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
then.
So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
above?
Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
How important an insight is that?
So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
care even less!
Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
the market for Blade servers?
I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
wider markets.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
eye teeth for a background like that! How many management wonks would
relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
average businessperson on the street.
If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
it that way - or not as the case may be.
I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
base and larger market share.
OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
you like.
As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
anything else.
But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
to refuse.
The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
interested in being an engineer.
But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
understand?
It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
television adverts.
If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
the foreseeable future.
But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
Ian
Re: Exclude URL Pattern
Posted by "G.Venkata Phanindra" <ph...@gmail.com>.
Hi Amit Shinde,
There are two in which u can achieve this
1 writing a java request wrapper which takes your url and converts
into ofbiz related url and pass it to controller i.e we have to override the
methods in request wrapper class.
2 Use rewrite rules in Apache and make sure that url is changed to
way in which ofbiz can underdstand .......
regards
G Venkata Phanindra.
On 1/3/07, Amit Shinde <am...@amicontech.com> wrote:
>
> Hello and Happy New Year to Everyone,
>
> I want to exclude a request to the controller
> and
> was wondering if there is a way to do so. I want the request
> http://localhost/abc/control/photos to bypass the controller and hit the
> directory /webapp/abc/photos to access all the images in there.
>
> I know we can access http://localhost/abc/photos
> directly by putting photos in the allowedPaths. But in this case, I cannot
> change/edit the request path as it is made from a compiled swf file. So
> the
> swf file makes a request to render all the photos.
>
>
> Any inputs will be appreciated,
>
> Amit Shinde
>
>
>
--
G.Venkata Phanindra
Mob:: 9849852989
Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
Posted by Ian McNulty <ia...@mcnultymedia.co.uk>.
Tim,
Thanks for the pointer.
I'll certainly be checking it out and will pass on first impressions
when I do.
Cheers,
Ian
Tim Ruppert wrote:
> Just so you know guys, we are effectively doing solutions for small
> business customers with custom front ends that are providing great
> return on their investment. Many of them have limited budgets, but by
> being flexible to their needs and seeing exactly what they're trying
> to get out of the system, we have proven that it can be done. The
> only caveat is that it takes a reasonable amount of time and focus to
> get to a point where this is something that you can offer as a vendor
> - but what technology is that _not_ true of?
>
> The fact of the matter is that the reason that HotWax got involved
> with OFBiz in the first place was to be able to bring enterprise
> solutions to small businesses as a reasonable cost. The little guy
> deserves the scalability and complete integration that large business
> enjoy.
>
> I'm not sure how to fully answer Ian's monologue other than to say
> that this can be done my friend.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim
> --
> Tim Ruppert
> HotWax Media
> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
>
> o:801.649.6594
> f:801.649.6595
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> You will NOT get a kicking from me. I'm right there with you.
>>
>> I still think a OOTB solution for the small business is do-able.
>>
>> Let's see what other comments this raises.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Andrew Ballantine.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk]
>> Sent: 03 January 2007 10:15
>> To: ofbiz-user@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>>
>>
>> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
>> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
>> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>>
>> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm
>> coming from.
>>
>> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
>> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
>> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
>> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>>
>> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
>> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
>> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
>> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
>> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
>> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>>
>> From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
>> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
>> sweet I just had to find out more.
>>
>> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
>> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
>> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>>
>> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
>> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
>> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>>
>> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
>> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
>> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>>
>> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
>> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
>> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
>> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
>> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
>> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
>> no-brainer!
>>
>> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
>> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
>> really do.
>>
>> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
>> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
>> the building in minutes.
>>
>> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
>> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
>> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
>> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
>> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
>> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>>
>> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
>> the people rather than the code.
>>
>> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
>> fixed already?
>>
>> From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
>> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
>> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
>> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>>
>> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
>> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
>> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
>> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
>> business.
>>
>> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
>> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
>> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
>> par for that kind of course to me.
>>
>> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>>
>> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
>>
>> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
>> them.
>>
>> But how much value, and how much cost?
>>
>> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
>> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
>> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
>> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
>> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
>> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
>> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
>> whole machine.
>>
>> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
>> on exactly these issues.
>>
>> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
>> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
>> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
>> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
>> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
>> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really
>> know yet.
>>
>> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
>> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>>
>> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>>
>> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
>> then.
>>
>> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
>> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
>> above?
>>
>> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>>
>> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
>> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
>> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
>> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>>
>> How important an insight is that?
>>
>> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
>> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
>> care even less!
>>
>> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
>> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
>> the market for Blade servers?
>>
>> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
>> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
>> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
>> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
>> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
>> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
>> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>>
>> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
>> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
>> wider markets.
>>
>> From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
>> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
>> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
>> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
>> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
>> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
>> eye teeth for a background like that! How many management wonks would
>> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
>> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
>> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
>>
>> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
>> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
>> average businessperson on the street.
>>
>> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
>> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
>> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>>
>> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
>> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
>> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
>> base and larger market share.
>>
>> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
>> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
>> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
>> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
>> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
>> you like.
>>
>> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
>> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
>> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
>> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
>> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>>
>> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
>> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
>> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
>> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
>> anything else.
>>
>> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
>> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
>> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
>> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
>> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
>> to refuse.
>>
>> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
>> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
>> applications.
>>
>> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
>> interested in being an engineer.
>>
>> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
>> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
>> understand?
>>
>> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
>> television adverts.
>>
>> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
>> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>>
>> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
>>
>> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
>> the foreseeable future.
>>
>> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
>> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
>> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
>> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider
>> user base.
>>
>> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
>> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
>>
>> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
>> 02/01/2007
>> 14:58
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
>> 02/01/2007
>> 14:58
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
>> 02/01/2007
>> 14:58
>>
>>
>>
>> *****************************************************************
>> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
>> *****************************************************************
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcnultyMEDIA
60 Birkdale Gardens
Durham
DH1 2UL
t: +44 (0)191 384 4736
e: ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk
w: www.mcnultymedia.co.uk
==============================================================================================
This communication is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) named above and is confidential. Any form of distribution, copying, discussion or use of this communication, its contents, or any information contained herein without prior consent is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify the sender by email or by telephone on +44 (0)191 384 4736
This email has been checked for viruses, however, we cannot accept any liability sustained as a result of software viruses and would recommend that you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
==============================================================================================
Re: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
Posted by Tim Ruppert <ti...@hotwaxmedia.com>.
Just so you know guys, we are effectively doing solutions for small
business customers with custom front ends that are providing great
return on their investment. Many of them have limited budgets, but
by being flexible to their needs and seeing exactly what they're
trying to get out of the system, we have proven that it can be done.
The only caveat is that it takes a reasonable amount of time and
focus to get to a point where this is something that you can offer as
a vendor - but what technology is that _not_ true of?
The fact of the matter is that the reason that HotWax got involved
with OFBiz in the first place was to be able to bring enterprise
solutions to small businesses as a reasonable cost. The little guy
deserves the scalability and complete integration that large business
enjoy.
I'm not sure how to fully answer Ian's monologue other than to say
that this can be done my friend.
Cheers,
Tim
--
Tim Ruppert
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
o:801.649.6594
f:801.649.6595
On Jan 3, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Andrew Ballantine wrote:
> Ian,
>
> You will NOT get a kicking from me. I'm right there with you.
>
> I still think a OOTB solution for the small business is do-able.
>
> Let's see what other comments this raises.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Andrew Ballantine.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian McNulty [mailto:ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk]
> Sent: 03 January 2007 10:15
> To: ofbiz-user@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
>
>
> I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked
> me to
> move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in
> for
> a good kicking. But here goes anyway
>
> First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm
> coming from.
>
> I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
> modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
> but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user,
> interested
> not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
>
> I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
> request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
> raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going
> to be
> like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
> the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to
> stop me
> dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
>
> From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
> client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
> sweet I just had to find out more.
>
> The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
> Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
> could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
>
> This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of
> us can
> survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This
> could
> be monumental. The next big leap forward.
>
> I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then
> again,
> I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
> (what version of Windows ever was?)
>
> I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour)
> running
> on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do
> have
> some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
> tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I
> know.
> Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to
> anybody
> else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
> no-brainer!
>
> So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
> manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
> really do.
>
> Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
> obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me
> out of
> the building in minutes.
>
> The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting
> down
> for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
> that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
> time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
> Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that
> would be
> the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
>
> So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation
> and
> the people rather than the code.
>
> Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
> fixed already?
>
> From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
> marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's
> POV -
> as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
> there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
>
> Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like
> what I
> need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
> low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
> that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the
> business.
>
> But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
> charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
> have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
> par for that kind of course to me.
>
> So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
>
> All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees
> max.
>
> OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of
> them.
>
> But how much value, and how much cost?
>
> If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
> the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
> high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys
> just
> won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to
> the
> average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights
> and
> start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
> the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
> whole machine.
>
> Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
> on exactly these issues.
>
> "If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack",
> however,
> open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
> Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
> enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
> solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
> distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really
> know yet.
>
> What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a
> credible
> in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
>
> Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
>
> So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after
> all
> then.
>
> So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
> consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
> above?
>
> Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
>
> "Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
> features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
> "due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users
> using
> the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
>
> How important an insight is that?
>
> So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with
> those
> who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
> care even less!
>
> Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
> technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
> the market for Blade servers?
>
> I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that
> money to
> advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
> average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
> that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
> decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far
> up on
> the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
> know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
>
> So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
> grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
> wider markets.
>
> From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
> already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As
> someone
> with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps
> more
> focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of
> the
> average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
> who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
> eye teeth for a background like that! How many management wonks would
> relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to
> start
> their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
> that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in
> finance.
>
> The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
> users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
> average businessperson on the street.
>
> If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
> position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
> it that way - or not as the case may be.
>
> I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
> will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider
> user
> group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
> base and larger market share.
>
> OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
> which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the
> tool
> was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
> than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying
> into
> the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
> you like.
>
> As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up
> and a
> level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
> equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
> development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
> policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
>
> To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I
> don't
> need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
> said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
> me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of
> using
> anything else.
>
> But creating something like that means taking at least some of the
> focus
> away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it
> appears to
> the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
> there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
> overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any
> reason
> to refuse.
>
> The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies
> looks
> fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level
> applications.
>
> The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
> interested in being an engineer.
>
> But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
> the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
> understand?
>
> It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
> television adverts.
>
> If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
> would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
>
> But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the
> moment.
>
> I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
> the foreseeable future.
>
> But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
> deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
> resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
> application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider
> user base.
>
> That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
> wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the
> noise.
>
> Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
> 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
> 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date:
> 02/01/2007
> 14:58
>
>
>
> *****************************************************************
> This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
> *****************************************************************
RE: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
Posted by Andrew Ballantine <ac...@willowbrook.co.uk>.
Ian,
You will NOT get a kicking from me. I'm right there with you.
I still think a OOTB solution for the small business is do-able.
Let's see what other comments this raises.
Kind regards,
Andrew Ballantine.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian McNulty [mailto:ian@mcnultymedia.co.uk]
Sent: 03 January 2007 10:15
To: ofbiz-user@incubator.apache.org
Subject: What does "OOTB front-end accessibility" mean to you?
I've been having this email discussion with David which he's asked me to
move out onto this mailing list. I guess that probably means I'm in for
a good kicking. But here goes anyway
First, some background to give some kind of handle on where I'm coming from.
I started working with computers in the late 60s as a physicist
modelling plasma dynamics. I've switched careers several times since,
but my relationship to computers remains the same. As a user, interested
not so much in the tool itself, but with what it can do.
I first came across OFBiz a month ago whilst researching a client's
request for back-end integration with osCommerce. As someone who was
raised in a generation that really did believe that 2001 was going to be
like Stanley Kubrick said it was going to be, I can count on one hand
the number of times a piece of technology has had enough wow to stop me
dead in my tracks. OFBiz would be one!
From the outset it was clear that it was way too big a leap for any
client I know of to contemplate making. But the technology looked so
sweet I just had to find out more.
The more I looked the more fascinated I became. Platform independent.
Modular. Scale-able. Open Source. Wow! What a magnificent tool this
could be! Why would anybody ever want to use anything else?
This is a tool for running any kind of business you like. None of us can
survive without connection to some kind of business or other. This could
be monumental. The next big leap forward.
I didn't expect installation to be easy, and it wasn't! But then again,
I've just installed XP on new PC and that wasn't all that easy either
(what version of Windows ever was?)
I managed to get pilot installations of OFBiz (opentaps flavour) running
on Windows and Linux without too much trouble. But then again, I do have
some experience of this kind of thing. When it comes to setting up new
tools, I have several magnitudes more patience than anybody else I know.
Which means that if an application is going to be of any use to anybody
else apart from me, I have to hone usability down to the point it's a
no-brainer!
So I'm running opentaps and slowly working my way through the various
manuals and documents trying to get a handle on what this thing can
really do.
Pretty quickly I discover at least one glaringly obvious problem. So
obvious that if I demonstrated it to a client they would laugh me out of
the building in minutes.
The problem itself is trivial. A simple matter of somebody sitting down
for a few days and writing the necessary code. But who is going to do
that? Not me surely? I have the Java textbook, but still haven't found
time to sit down and read more than the first couple of chapters.
Finding other people with the expertise and the time to do that would be
the key. Or at least that's what I thought at the time!
So I go back to the web sites and start looking at the organisation and
the people rather than the code.
Who could fix this problem? How much would it cost? Why hasn't it been
fixed already?
From the outset it's obvious that the Apache Incubator site is a
marvellous resource for engineers. But looking it from the user's POV -
as someone who wants to contact an engineer rather be one himself -
there isn't much I can get a handle on here.
Opentaps, Opensource Strategies and Undersun look much more like what I
need. Clean. Crisp. Elegant designs. Engineering 'talkback' mixed down
low in the background. You don't have to be an engineer to understand
that, for enterprise-level installation, these guys look like the business.
But enterprise-level means high-end, expensive! Corporate lawyers can
charge thousands an hour. Maybe these guys know they're worth more? I
have seen odd references to multi-million dollar installations. Sounds
par for that kind of course to me.
So where does that leave the ordinary Joe?
All businesses I personally deal with are small. 1 to 50 employees max.
OFBiz looks like it should be scalable, could be of value to all of them.
But how much value, and how much cost?
If I was running the IT department at the White House I'd be inviting
the OFBiz guys in and showing MS the door. With the prospect of
high-end, high-value contracts in the pipeline, I guess these guys just
won't have time to even think about making this stuff accessible to the
average Joe in the street. Oh well. Better start lowering my sights and
start thinking about cobbling together some low-level XSLT plugins for
the existing kit rather than thinking about a complete revamp of the
whole machine.
Then I discover Si's Jan 09/06 blog - exactly a year ago! - meditating
on exactly these issues.
"If open source is to gain popularity and move "up the stack", however,
open source software will need other advocates in the enterprise.
Somebody else besides the IT department must also be able to convince
enterprise users that open source software is indeed a credible
solution. Whether that advocate ultimately is a consulting firm, a
distributor, or an ISV using open source software, we don't really know yet.
What we can be certain of is this: whoever makes open source a credible
in the enterprise would ultimately win the "Linux wars."
Aha. Now then. That's interesting.
So credibility on the enterprise level isn't such a done deal after all
then.
So who could those advocates outside the IT department be? Is it the
consulting firm, the distributor, the ISV? Or is it all or none of the
above?
Rereading Si's blog, I was struck by this:
"Most buyers of commercial software don't actually verify that its
features are bug free or check out its support lines. Instead, their
"due diligence" consists of making sure that there are other users using
the software, including, most importantly, their golf buddies."
How important an insight is that?
So the key to credibility in the decision making process lies with those
who know absolutely nothing about the technicalities and most probably
care even less!
Why else would IBM spend many millions advertising enterprise level
technology on prime time television? How many viewers are actually in
the market for Blade servers?
I doubt anybody in IBM marketing believes they're spending that money to
advertise servers. They're spending it to make sure that not only the
average golf-buddy, but also his wife, kids, and grandmother all know
that IBM is a credible player. Because they know that's how the big
decisions are actually made. Emotionally, by people who are so far up on
the bridge of the ship, away from the engine room, that they probably
know less about the mechanics of it than their grandmothers!
So making OFBiz emotionally accessible to the average Joe Soap's
grandmother could be the key to unlocking both enterprise level and
wider markets.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that Si in particular has
already done a considerable amount of work in this direction. As someone
with formal financial rather than technical training, he is perhaps more
focused on markets than most. But Si is in no way representative of the
average user. His blog tells me his parents were postgrad programmers
who taught him everything they knew. Most programmers would give their
eye teeth for a background like that! How many management wonks would
relish the idea of lifting up the bonnet everytime they wanted to start
their car? They chose their roles in life precisely to keep away from
that kind of thing. As indeed did Si when he chose a career in finance.
The moral of this would be that what is accessible to Si or most other
users on this forum is not necessarily even slightly accessible to the
average businessperson on the street.
If you wanted to maintain an elite group of cognoscenti who are in the
position to charge highly for their services then you may want to keep
it that way - or not as the case may be.
I would argue that the code is so radical and so deep that some levels
will always remain expert only. Increasing accessibility to a wider user
group would not threaten that core and could only lead to a wider user
base and larger market share.
OOTB, front-end, user accessibility to me means minimising any factors
which take time and attention away from getting on with the job the tool
was designed to do. From a purely user's POV, these are nothing more
than distractions, irritations and ultimately objections to buying into
the programme. Noise drowning out signals on the marketing channels if
you like.
As in all user applications, a proportion of time spent tooling-up and a
level of unwanted noise is to be expected. But in the job-efficiency
equation, this is a drag component to be optimised out. In the
development of sleek, user-friendly implementations, a zero tolerance
policy on noise, friction and drag is the only way to go!
To me, OOTB accessibility means exactly what it says on the tin: I don't
need a degree in anything to install or run it. It does everything it
said it would do. Is easy to maintain. Has cost exactly what they told
me it would. A brilliant tool for the job. Wouldn't even think of using
anything else.
But creating something like that means taking at least some of the focus
away engineering a better mousetrap, to looking at the way it appears to
the average mouse. Is it easy for them to get to the cheese, or are
there still too many wires and cogs in the way? Closing a sale means
overcoming all the objections. Making offers people don't see any reason
to refuse.
The marketing proposition from Undersun and Opensource Strategies looks
fine - if you're only interested in high end, enterprise-level applications.
The engineering proposition on Apache incubator looks fine - if you're
interested in being an engineer.
But where is the low-end proposition for the average businessperson in
the street? Something his golf playing buddie's grandmother might
understand?
It could be concluded that what I'm angling for here is a series of
television adverts.
If I thought OFBiz had a couple of mill lying around spare then this
would certainly be the case. If it's good enough for IBM...
But I doubt OFBiz is anywhere near that kind of position at the moment.
I just kinda don't see any reason why it shouldn't be at some time in
the foreseeable future.
But there would need to be a will to go in this direction and the
deliberate diversion of at least some of the time, creativity and
resources away from strictly engineering matters, into making the
application more accessible - acceptable - applicable, to a wider user base.
That would mean opening up whatever channels of communication with the
wider public are available and boosting the signal well above the noise.
Almost everybody has need of OFBiz. They just don't know it yet!
Ian
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.3/614 - Release Date: 02/01/2007
14:58
*****************************************************************
This email has been checked by the altohiway Mailcontroller Service
*****************************************************************
Exclude URL Pattern
Posted by Amit Shinde <am...@amicontech.com>.
Hello and Happy New Year to Everyone,
I want to exclude a request to the controller and
was wondering if there is a way to do so. I want the request
http://localhost/abc/control/photos to bypass the controller and hit the
directory /webapp/abc/photos to access all the images in there.
I know we can access http://localhost/abc/photos
directly by putting photos in the allowedPaths. But in this case, I cannot
change/edit the request path as it is made from a compiled swf file. So the
swf file makes a request to render all the photos.
Any inputs will be appreciated,
Amit Shinde