Can you include user definable info in the receipt?

[Charlesn]

My client currently has 3 (required) questions in the 'user definable' section on their website. They don't use order manager as they only sell a couple of products, instead they just get a copy of the receipt when somebody orders which they use as a picking list for despatch.

The receipts don't include the 'user definable' questions though, is there a way of including this in the receipt as this information is quite important to them?

Thanks
Charlie

[RuralWeb]

They don't use order manager as they only sell a couple of products, instead they just get a copy of the receipt when somebody orders which they use as a picking list for despatch I dont think this is allowed under the terms of the Actinic user licence - you will need to confirm with Actinic that using the software in this way is authorised.

I presume you have developer and are maintaining the site?

[Charlesn]

I did check that the site would work properly if we did it this way before starting and Actinic didn't flag that we would be contravening the user agreement.

We are indeed running developer and have control of the site.

Cheers
C

[jont]

Not another one Malcolm??

[Charlesn]

Not another what?

[RuralWeb]

Actinic didn't flag that we would be contravening the user agreement. I have contacted Actinic directly on this one to get the full story on this issue and will post when they get back to me.

[RuralWeb]

Ok - Actinic have just got back and said that it is OK to manage stores without using Order Manager!

[RuralWeb]

You could try editing act_customeremail to include the user def fields?

[jont]

Ok - Actinic have just got back and said that it is OK to manage stores without using Order Manager!

Makes you wonder why they ever bothered with order manager!

[jont]

Not another what?

Hi Charles - I have replied to your email

[RuralWeb]

Makes you wonder why they ever bothered with order manager! Its not allways been the case - it dose however open up cheaper site building for designers.

[jont]

Aye indeed - especially for the smaller "back bedroom" clients who don't require all the back-office facilities

[Duncan Rounding]

I thought the end user needed a licence even if they didn't want the back office parts - Hence the introduction of the Client licence in V8.

[wjcampbe]

Ok - Actinic have just got back and said that it is OK to manage stores without using Order Manager!

I can't believe Actinic understood the question.

I still consider this method of operation unethical, reprehensible and repugnant.

[jont]

It certainly goes against the commercial grain.

Maybe Chris D or Chris B could clarify the exact position

[Charlesn]

Looks like this particular can of worms contains a lot of opinionated and self-righteous responses...

For the record, i have numerous sites that have been deployed with Order Manager or Catalog behind them and have been a supporter of Actinic for the last 7 years. Whilst I agree that commercially this isn't ideal for Actinic (or us as a design agency), we needed to find the cheapest possible solution for our client and this was it. When we ran through the features that Order Manager would offer, my client needed none of them. With only 4 products to sell and a very small profit margin it just wasn't financially viable or even necessary.

Like I said previously, I have spoken to Actinic about this and they didn't have a problem with it. In fact I seem to remember the person I spoke to in sales even saying 'from the sound of it they don't need it so I wouldn't worry'.

If anybody has any ideas on a way around this I'd love to hear them, but if you just want to pass judgement on my deplorable behavior maybe you'd better speak to Actinic as they clearly have something of a grey area here. If they really won't allow this but have given me the thumbs up on it, I'll look forward to receiving my free copy of Order Manager to rectify the situation immediately.

[RuralWeb]

I can't believe Actinic understood the question I can assure you that they did as I was VERY clear about what I was asking. They said it was no problem as long as the client agreed to it!!!

Now extending this theory we could use the free copy of V8 in PCW to download orders??

[RuralWeb]

If anybody has any ideas on a way around this I'd love to hear them I have no problems with the way you are working as at the end of the day it is Actinic who decide how thier products can be used.

I now know the policy from the horses mouth and although not really applicable to me as I dont manage stores, it will be useful for others I am sure.

[cdicken]

Hi all

I think the key thing here is that Developer (v7) is very different from Designer (v8). The only thing that they hold in common is that they both start with 'D'.

Developer costed £1249 and enabled you to build and manage any number of stores. Designer is much cheaper, and enables you to build stores, but not manage them (i.e. not download orders).

What Charles is doing doesn't contravene the license agreement as he is licensed to manage the store on behalf of his client - which he is doing (i.e. Charles is downloading the orders). The customer just happens to be CCed the receipt email, which they are using to process the orders. It's exactly the same as if Charles downloaded the orders, printed them off and faxed them to his client.

As and when Charles upgrades his Developer to v8, he will upgrade to Business Multi-Site (rather than Designer) so he will be able to keep working as he is doing at the moment.

And finally, the Advanced User Guide has info on adding user-definable field values to the customer receipt emails.