Related
During the past weeks, I developed and published a small OS X utility app that sells for ~$3 in the Mac App Store. However, due do French export laws for apps that include encryption mechanisms, the app is not available in the French app store.
(It ships and uses libssh2 and implements SCP over SSH, and therefor does not use "encryption mechanisms that are provided by the operating system" - the registration process for that is all in French and neither Apple nor the French government seems to be able to help with that.)
As I got a bunch of emails asking why the app is not available in the French Mac App Store by now, I thought about offering a non-MAS version of the app. Coming to my initial question, I'm not sure if I want to spend time on implementing any kind of license key check etc., or just offer that version completely without DRM / license checks as it surely will be cracked either way. (The Mac App Store version is available as a torrent for quite some time now, so whoever wants to steal the app will do no matter what I finally do.)
So, I'd like to ask you guys how you handle this, or how you would handle this if you were in my situation? Spend time on implementing a license key check that will be cracked either way, or just offer a non-DRM version that'll sell in France to make everyone happy?
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Original thread from HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7796397)
Update to finish this up:
I finally decided to implement a license validation for the Mac App Store version that is very hassle-free for the user. In the best case, he doesn't even notice this, in the worst case (where no receipt is found within the app bundle) the app will trigger the storeagent to download the receipt and then successfully relaunch. Pretty simple.
For the non-Mac App Store version (which I've introduced because of the French App Store issue explained above) I stick with a 3rd-party contractor who handles all the licensing for me.
I guess this way is a good tradeoff between security and positive user experience. Thanks for your input.
In my experience, if you are going to sell the software, you should consider a very lightweight license checker. As you pointed out, people will break your DRM if they are sufficiently motivated, so you can't hope to prevent intentional piracy. However, having a simple system that reminds users who download the software online that they should pay for it (and if it makes sense providing a basic trial system) is a reasonable approach.
However, don't spend too much time implementing the system, and make sure you thoroughly test the key system before every release, because trying to explain to users that you accidentally made it impossible for them to use the software that they have paid for is something you never want to do.
Bigger than the question of whether it's going to be hacked is whether the overhead of managing the licensing will overwhelm the profit. For example, I've seen people with very inexpensive apps basically have a checkbox for users who bought the app in order to turn off the reminders in trial versions. Very shareware-like, but considering the cost and potential review hassle of a problem with licensing, it might be worth considering that approach.
If you want to put in a bit more effort, there are a couple of open source libraries, including Aquatic Prime that provide more sophisticated protection , but require integration with whatever type of online store you are using. Since it's reasonably widely used in the community, store systems like FastSpring provide built-in integration with it. Also, it looks like the open-source Potion Store supports it out of the box. I've not used it personally.
Beyond that, my experience is that they are a large pain to create/debug/support and unless your app is expensive enough to require special features like partial-enabling, expiring licenses, region testing, real-time revocation, etc., it is likely not worth the effort to do anything custom.
Please Bear with me as I know It needs research from my side but still want to ask as It would make things a lot easier for me.
Here is what I want to implement.
An online shop where I would configure admin areas for different store owners (vendors). The store owner can belong to same area or different areas. Using the admin area, each store owner can select from pre-configured list of products and define prices for the products in different locations where they have a physical store. The end user can browse the products listing based on his location (area). If multiple vendors belong to same area as customer, the customer will see the product with multiple prices from different vendors. If none of the vendor configured the product of that area, customer will not see the product.
Now the question is, what would be the appropriate option for the above requirements.
Magento, Opencart, nopcommerce or something else?
This is based on my experience. My advice, if you want sth that goes beyond minor tweaks and a couple of new features, stay away from opencart for the time being.
First of all, you will have to pay (not little...) for extensions and mods of often low quality and crappy support. You should also feel lucky to find one that will cover all the features you want and interoperability between extensions is just non-existent. And if you ask for more features chances are you will have to pay again. There are some free extensions but most are a joke. Like, put a link in your footer or disable sth.
So your next option is coding. Opencart is easy to learn if you know basic php and you can start writing code fast. But.. Opencart lacks a solid mechanism for extending it (until v2.0 at least) and after a while it gets both chaotic and frustrating. Also, you will often need to implement stuff that needs some basic backend functionality from opencart but which is either offered in a way that is useless to you or with basic needed features absent. As a result you will find yourself creating your own "library" of functions that will allow you later to focus on your extension. Moreover there is actually no framework on which you can rely. Sure there are some functions and some methods that you can use, but that's it.
Another thing. The opencart community is not one of the easiest to go along with. I don't mean they are bad or that they will bite you, but people there try to make money and do not find it easy to share things with you, be it advice or code. Also, they are competitive. And they do not accept criticism, even suggestions, gladly. And there is a scent of eliticism in some threads that can upset your stomach.
This is how I have experienced opencart. I have to admit that I like opencart itself and I find pleasure in coding for it and even now I am debugging some new extension of mine. But often it reminds me that there is so much lacking and I often spend so much time doing trivial stuff that it makes me wonder if it is worth it.
I do not know about magento. It feels similar to opencart to me.
I would suggest drupal to anyone wanting to implement something custom. There is all a framework and powerful free as in speech extensions and a great truly foss community. There are a couple options there for building an eshop but I would go with the commerce module. It takes a while to get used to all the concepts but you can achieve what you want with just mere clicks. You won't even have to write code if you don't want to.
Again I repeat, avoid opencart if you need sth too custom (as you do). If not, opencart is one of the fastest to deploy.
For common elements, such as a logout button on a website, save button in an application, need to be presented to users in an standard, easily discoverable way. How do you go about deciding where in your application to place these elements? Do you research similar apps and try to follow convention? Is there any database that attempts to track the use of these common elements or is this too hard to capture?
The goal is to put UI elements where users expect to find them. You want to leverage the knowledge that they already have about how applications work.
So, looking at the the UI elements for the OS that you are targeting is helpful. Unfortunately, there are some key differences here between Windows and Mac, you will have to pick one or switch based on the OS if you target both.
Looking at applications that are similar to yours is generally not a good idea unless you believe that people using your product are already using these other products and you want them to switch.
Instead, you look at products that are complementary to yours, or products that you expect everyone is familiar with. At one point it was a good idea to look at Excel and Word to know how an Windows application should work; But I don't think that the current versions of Excel and Word are a good model, they deviate too much from the way the OS works. You could still use older versions - before the ribbon, if you are targeting Windows.
It's best to be a bit conservative, choosing applications that have been out for a while and people are likely to be comfortable with rather than chasing the latest design innovations that are coming out of Apple and Microsoft.
I research similar apps and try to follow convention...
E.g. logout goes up in the top right near the "X"/close in most applications
Save/Edit buttons towards the bottom of the thing I'm editing... since contextually they happen after I finish the editing I just did.
Then again, you have apps like Outlook... that have the send/save buttons at the top.
In general though... I have application-wide actions (e.g. login/logout/help user info at the top)
Item specific tend to be inline or just after the item they are adding/editing.
I totally agree with leveraging knowledge that the user already has. Every techie is (or probably is) familiar with http://www.dice.com. It frustrates me to no end to see that their website is designed with the logout "link" (not even a "button") at the very BOTTOM of the page. In this age of security conciousness, what a place to put a logout link ???
I have used DeLorme Street Atlas USA mapping software ever since Windows 3.1. About five or so years ago, they changed their entire user interface, moving AWAY from all of the features that make application software in the Windows environment easy to learn and navigate and SIMILAR from one application to another, and TO a totally foreign user interface, unique to their individual product offering.
Was it necessary ? probably not... What was it's impact to the current user community ? probably not thought about... What was it's impact to someone new to Street Atlas USA ?? Probably LESSENED the adoption rate of the software product, because it looked so foreign compared to a user's already-used applications developed with the common Windows-based look and feel.
Although books can be written on how "we" dislike Microsoft, the value-added benefit to Windows since it's infancy with Windows 3.1 was that you could create totally different software applications, but have a SIMILAR navigation style threaded throughout all of the applications, LESSENING the new application learning curve, and INCREASING the adoption rate amongst software applications for the Windows user.
Leveraging positive current user knowledge can only increase the adoption rate of a software product. Why re-invent the wheel, when the current wheel is known and adequate ?
I want to add a "Community" section (Bulletin Board) to my website so everyone can communicate, but I don't know what I'm doing.
How would I go about adding this and which one offers the most documentation and support?
Whatever you do, make certain that you read the instructions on configuring your discussion software to protect you and your community for the worst parts of the internet: spam, spoofing, and abuse.
Make certain that you immediately change the admin password from the one that comes with the installation.
If you leave your communities wide open to all kinds of posting, harvesting, and general mis-use, you'll spend your days playing whack-a-mole with thousands of idiots. Develop your acceptable use policy, configure your boards to support it, then enforce it.
And if the software you are looking at doesn't support things like e-mail verification, moderation, abuse reporting, anti-spamming controls, etc., just keep looking.
Be prepared to spend time managing your community so that it doesn't become another one of the millions of web forums out there full of off topic posts that drive people away from your website.
I think what you needed is a forum software, there are tones of free and open source ones available on the net. DotNetNuke is a .NET one but can be expensive to host and phpBB is another popular choice and there are a lot of cheap hosting solutions.
is your site based on php/mysql or asp/sql? Chances are if you do not know where to even find tables, that you are not able to what you actually want.
HOWEVER, if it's php/mysql, i recommend Cool Php Scripts book. It covers creating sort of a community forum/message board.
As i said again, you are probably not going to do it alone, at least, without a long frustrating learning curve.
You can always post a job and someone would be more than willing to bid on it at elance or rentacoder or any other site of your choice
Wikipedia has a big honking list of forum software. Pick the one that best matches the programming language(s) you're familiar with, the features you need, etc.
This is what you need.
Edit: They don't offer a hosted version there. You can use this instead. It's hosted on it's own site, free, and doesn't require a download.
I find Vanilla to be a much better forum application that phpBB for reasons of aesthetics as well as extensibility. I have not seen/used it in a situation where many sub-forums were required, so depending on your scope it may not be the right choice, but for small-to-medium sized forums I'd suggest trying it first.
First, you need to choose a forum software that matchs your requirements.
Then, just follow the Installation Guide provided by the software you have choosen.
More information at Forum Software Reviews
I find that most of microsoft's new programs are very hard to use.
Microsoft Office 2007 (word especially) I find to be hard to use.
Microsoft IIS 7.0 is a PAIN, I never remember which icon to click on, things are just to cluttered and hard to find.
As a programmer, we have to design according to what people are used too, what exactly is MS telling us to do?
we have to design according to what people are used too
Well that's a slight misconception. You're not wrong that people familiar with something will appreciate the interface remaining familiar, but not all change is bad. You have to weigh the power of the change up against the harm it does to veteran users.
Lets take Office 2007 as an example.
The ribbon interface is a huge departure from the interface Office has used for as long as I can remember but there is sound logic behind it.
User functions are grouped by activity and it's very easy to change which set of functions you're looking at.
They're also contextual so some thing only show up when you're on a table or an image (etc).
These both help keep the clutter down - something really quite useful as these apps grow in feature-sets. Rather than spending hours choosing and customising a set of toolbars, you have access to everything through the tabs.
And Microsoft did this all the right way. They tested the interface on lots and lots of real people. They listened to see what worked and what they should fix or drop. They also kept some legacy keyboard shortcuts for seasoned pros.
The redesign effort was targeted at making life easier on beginner and intermediate -level users. Mission accomplished. The problem you're having is overcoming your familiarity but I can't be more helpful than say: It'll happen in time, but you'll manage it in the end.
Look, I'm just a simple caveman, scared by your post-modern architectures and vroom vroom machines go honk. I'm used to the simple life of the paleolithic era; charcoal cave paintings and bone-based technology. I can't make heads or tails of your fancy ribbon UIs and pointy-clicky icons. That's why I'm never upgrading from DOS. The old ways were always the best, and learning new ones bad like fire.
Well, Microsoft has to balance this. On one side, users scream for new features and change-for-change's sake in a lot of MS software. On the other, lack of backwards compatibility (including subjective UI compatibility) is a deal breaker. Really no way to win there.
That said, I don't think we need to design according to what people are used to; neither does Microsoft. Change will never happen if we just do what has always been done before. IIS is not developed for programmers; it's developed for IT people. And the new interface serves them well. Likewise, Office is designed for office drones, not programmers, and the new Office is very discoverable for that particular group.
I think they take a while to get used to, but I do like them. (Althought I will fully admit I am a mac person and I like the mac UI a lot better).
The biggest thing I've seen about the UI that is difficult is the fact that it is so much different from previous versions (I'm talking about the current version of Office). That seems to be where most of the rub is.
The rule I was taught about UI design is that things need to be familiar to the user (that's really is what makes it "intuitive"). MS broke that rule ......but from a business perspective they are allowed a little leeway when doing this simply because they control so much of the market share. Ultimately, they know that a radical change won't cause a loss of much market share because for most people and businesses there isn't a real viable alternative. (I know there is open office, but migrating a mid to large office to it will cost as much money or more as it will to just continue using the same product).
Do we have to design according to what people are used to, yes we kinda do. Does this mean we have to make it look like what MS is doing now, not necessarily. What we have to do is create a design the users can relate to. They have to be able to make a jump of logic from what they know already to using the products we create. If not, they most likely won't use the application unless they are absolutely forced to.
User interface and user experience are totally separate concepts. (Simon Guest; User Interface Blog.)
Microsoft did quite a bit of research in the raw usability of Office 2007, and found that while there is a learning curve for people like yourself, or me, who are experts in the tool, newer users and non-experts experienced much greater discoverability of more advanced features, and wound up using more of the application's features and power. Yes, there is a learning curve if you knew Office 2003 inside-out (which, frankly, few of us really did).
Now I'm not making apologies -- Microsoft's UIs haven't always been easy to use, and sometimes they fail miserably. (Personally I think not standardizing all of their office products on the Ribbon is a classic example -- there's a large context switch in my brain when I open Project or Visio, compared to when I open Word.)
As for what developers are "supposed" to do: Bear in mind that the ribbon isn't ideal for every scenario. If you're using it as a glorified, prettified toolbar, it's being used incorrectly. It's designed to help you organize literally hundreds (if not thousands) of commands in a way that makes them discoverable to your end user. It's supposed to reinforce the traditional experience of discovering the abilities of your application in a safe way (see any edition of About Face), when the depth of your application is too great to function within menus.
Aside from that, bear in mind that we should generally be making the most appropriate UI for our own audience, as Microsoft is attempting to do for its own audience. Again, we may find these things more difficult to use, as we are used to doing things a set way -- but it's the right thing (typically) for Microsoft to do. Remember that we programmers are not the target users of most UI. (How many of us turn off visual themes, for example? Now how many normal end users? BTW, I don't fall in that camp; I'm one of the few who actually finds Vista moderately attractive.)
Again, at the end of the day, what Microsoft does matters only to the extent that it becomes what your users expect, and then only if you can't educate them that "your way" is better. In any event, if usability is truly critical for you and your users, it's time to invest in usability testing and ensure that your application really is as usable as you think it is. And start reading usability sites. (You don't have to agree with them all, but understand them.) Here are some samples:
AskTog (Bruce Tognazzini, inactive but the archives are a treasure trove)
UseIt (Jakob Nielsen)
jnd.org (Don Norman)
Office User Interface Blog (Jensen Harris)
Microsoft Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines (The holy word on Windows)
It's interesting because there was a lot of talk about the usability testing that went into the design of the Ribbon controls, but along with almost everyone else I know I find them very difficult to use. I keep losing controls that I need and not being able to get them back until I've cycled through another three or four document views looking for them. I instinctively move my mouse to menus that no longer exist.
I wonder if they would be easier to someone not accustomed to the earlier office products- maybe this is who they did their usability testing with. I don't think the design of the new interfaces is bad as such, but it is different enough that for those of us who don't spend our whole time staring at Office but have been using the product for a long time it makes life difficult. I guess most real power-users would be doing most tasks from keystrokes anyway which presumably haven't changed too much.
The business problem is really that they need an incentive to upgrade and so they keep adding new features ( who do you know that uses all the features of Word ) and then they need to find ways to present those without making the application impossibly cluttered, which was certainly happening in the previous version of Office.
I'm not sure what we take from this as developers- maybe it's that we should design for usability from the start or find ways to make the transition between old and new functionality as easy as possible for our existing users.
Microsoft IIS 7.0 is a PAIN
I'm relieved to hear that others have found the new IIS UI a challenge. I stumbled into it without being forewarned, and was completely discombobulated. There is so much clicking around. You have to memorize where the feature is, or click and click. I don't know of a way to see all of the IIS settings at once (not that you could before, either, but at least you could stay in the single tabbed dialog).
I think it is really hard to adapt to an entirely new UI when you are so familiar with the old one. I am similarly disoriented by the ribbon menus. More clicking around to find the features. And not everything is in the ribbon. Some is in menus accessible from other entry points, such as file properties.
For new users who never saw the old UIs, it probably isn't so much of a problem.
I guess what I really dislike is having to spend the time learning the new UI, at the least convenient time. There is an immediate loss of productivity when you have to learn the new UI. You can't just drop into IIS, configure the website, and be on your way. The first few times, it's going to take a lot longer. Maybe with growing familiarity, we will come to like the new UIs better.
I wish they had given the option to show the menus for us old fuddy duddies.
I had a meeting with one of the Microsoft Office guys last year when I brought up the same points. His point was that the number of features had grown so much that a new method of displaying them was required. I was not entirely convinced and found it amusing that Microsoft are so touchy about the problem that he had a very nice, well-prepared PowerPoint presentation to give to try and explain it.
MS is trying to give users more power by being able to click this to do this or that and try to make what others may see as very advanced functions simpler to use and more powerful than the previous ones. I remember going from IIS 3.0 to 4.0 where suddenly, there are all these new buttons to click and things are different but it is kind of better. I also remember going from Windows 3.11 to 95 having its own shock of updating things.
Did you ever try watching a movie on VHS and on DVD or go from cassette to CD? Remember how the DVD suddenly had all these new features like chapters, no need to rewind, bonus features that you could just go to and not have to fast forward to find? Similarly how a CD organized things so much better than a cassette? Another point would be to look at TVs where it used to be very few options on a TV: There were 2 dials, the power and volume where combined into one place, and a few other knobs were all we had but now you have TVs where you can store favorites, closed captioning options, sound setting, and color style that could scare some people that remember the old days where you had to physically pull a knob to turn on the machine.
I find that most of microsoft's new
programs are very hard to use.
If you feel so, do yourself a favor and change to Mac. I did it and wont go back to windows. So much time wasted to achieve little things with Windows.
And Apple has Style Guides for GUIs. You dont have to stick to them, but as far as I can tell most developers do.
To prevent a Mac-Windows-Flamewar I would like to point out that this is totally my opinion. Please dear Windows user, do not feel attacked by my opinion.