Hi all,

I want to enter a new product in my shop, but I need to put in a minimum quantity.

This I can't do in the SCC. Will it be possible in the SCC Pro, please?

I don't know magic but couldn't you sell it in the minimum quantity lots?

Say if you need to buy a minimum of 10 then sell in lots of 10...

What if the min is 10 and you want 11 but don't need 20?

That is a problem for sure, and I don't believe that is part of the initial release of the Pro version and it's a great idea so hopefully the Dev's will see that suggestion here and give it some major thought.

But... what you could do is make your packages start with your minimum order amount and then have packages that increment up by say 2's or 3's. So if your amount is 5 them start your packages as having 5 already included and make another package with 7 and then 10 and 12 etc. whatever numbers work best for you and your product. This way they get the minimum amount no matter what package they choose, yet they have a choice to get the amounts in between say 10 and 20 as Tom said.

The whole problem with keep adding feature after feature, is that you eventually end up with an extremely bloated program no offers no real advantage over all the other bloated programs out there.

Certainly a little more flexibility on the quantities and the pricing wouldn't go amiss though. For example if you buy between 10 and 25 items the price is this, if you buy between 26 and 50 items the price is this etc. That sort of setup would allow the customers to buy 30 items at the preferential price with the correctly ammended price getting taken to the cart. Where it gets more complicated though, is if a customer decided they want another 5 items but instead of adding 5 by updating the current total they put it as a new order line and end up with 5 items at the higher cost. The programming needs to reflect all of those scenarios so you don't end up with irate and overcharged customers.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding - we have a winner!!!

While I think int would be a bit premature to make this statement about the Pro version, which hasn't yet been released, I often have this very thought in mind when reading enhancement requests for other CC programs, such as Web Calendar or Form Builder. Some of the requests go way beyond the basic concept and functionality of the software. Increasing complexity adds more than features to software, and it also adds potential for things to go wrong. I've seen software that was capable and stable devolve into a frustrating morass of bugs and workarounds in the name of "upgrades".

To an extent, and also to their credit, CC invites this with their "Suggestions for..." series of forum topics. It's great to have a software company that holds the ideas and requests of its customers in such high esteem and I have faith that they can stay within the original scope of an individual piece of software and avoid turning a simple utility into a Swiss Army Knife. I often avoid software suites, because there are usually individual programs that I prefer to use over one or more of the components of a suite. One size fits none! Going too far trying to please the demanding public by adding features can actually have a negative impact on reliability and usability.

My preference would be to concentrate on fixing known bugs -- like the background transparency issue on the Web Calendar -- before launching into a round of tweaks and enhancements. If a feature doesn't work, fix it or remove it, THEN start scabbing on the new stuff.

You mean this is canned software and will not be tailored to my every whim? I want a refund.

Hi all,

About Shopping Cart Creator (PRO?)




I suggest that pricing issues such as minimum quantity, price and discount matrix etc. should be at least at the level of a standard invoicing system.

About Web Calendar


Web calendar has not been updated since March, 2008, and suggestions for really basic stuff like YY/MM/DD date format and starting the week on Mondays instead of Sundays, which is how it works in most of Europe, and that I myself suggested in a support ticket in July, 2008 and Jose Manuel Sanchez did in September, 2009, have not been implemented.

I had a look through the other suggestions for Web Calendar, and they seemed mostly sensible to me.

To my mind there is no need to mock these suggestions, because they are suggestions not demands, and the CoffeeCup people will implement them at their leisure.

And in the non English speaking part of Europe we can just wait and see, when a piece of software that we paid for can actually be used.

The date format is really 'basic stuff' in the real world, but that does not necessarily mean that it could easily be implemented as a modification of an existing piece of software. Maybe it could, maybe it couldn't -- it's up to those who write the code to make that determination. Sometimes a seemingly minor change can necessitate a major mod or even a rewrite from the ground up. CC has to evaluate these requests and decide whether the level of complexity vs. benefit warrants allocating resources to satisfy them.

Proposed rule for software users: "Don't assume that a given task is easy to accomplish because it seems simple to you."


Mocking? I try to be respectful of others' feelings and ideas. I've highlighted words that you and I have used. My comment is that some requests go beyond the concept and functionality of the software.

You counter with "they seemed mostly sensible to me", which implies that some are not sensible. Would you rather be told that your idea is outside the scope of the program or that your idea isn't sensible?

And the key word in my comment is "some". It's not difficult to find a couple of examples that make my case that some requests are outside the basic functionality of the Web Calendar.

A couple of users would like to be able to display the calendar contents without hovering over a date or clicking on anything. The program wasn't designed to create an open-faced calendar with all the scheduled events displayed all the time. There are other ways to add a calendar of this type to a web page and Web Calendar would seem to have been created to serve as compact alternative to them!

Another user wants several different users to be able to add and modify events online, using a form. This changes it from a program that creates a calendar and uploads it to display on a web page, to one that must have some means of authorizing additional users to access a form that apparently must reside elsewhere on the website, or in another app loaded on their machines.

CoffeeCup programmers are undoubtedly capable of realizing just about anything that can be imagined. But changes also need to be cost-effective and fit within resource and budgetary constraints, especially given CC's generosity in providing free updates to purchasers of their software. Some of these ideas would surely require major rework, if not a total rewrite. That's costly and time-consuming.


Lacking features that you need for localization is not synonymous with being 'buggy'. You're not using it because you don't like its output.

CC offers free trials of most, if not all, of their offerings. The lack of date formatting that suits your purpose would be very easy to discern during the evaluation period.

I'm confused here, are we talking about SCC or Web Calendar? If it's Web Calendar can you carry on that conversation in the Web Calendar forum please so this can be suggestions for SCC and not get lost in suggestions and arguments for another program?