The Milonic DHTML Menu "Review"

Poster: John
Dated: Tuesday February 3 2004 - 15:36:36 GMT

For those of you who read the so-called review by Jennifer Kyrnin at http://webdesign.about.com/cs/dynamichtml/gr/aapr_milonicmnu.htm, kindly tell us what you think.

Thank you.

Poster: Stevey
Dated: Thursday February 5 2004 - 20:08:45 GMT

The reviewer evidently never downloaded the menu and try to learn more about the product. All she did was quickly read thru the the material on the website.

Note, there is something to be learn from the review though. I do sorta think the layout and the menu organization could use some improving. I also had a hard time locating what browsers were supported. The Home Page is rather lenghty and one has to scroll down quite a bit to find this info. Shorter pages and more menu options should do the trick.

Poster: fredlongworthhighschool
Dated: Monday February 9 2004 - 8:24:16 GMT

I managed to get a reply from her, but she never responded to the points I raised which she clearly got wrong.

I've posted her reply in the other thread in the V5 help section.

Poster: John
Dated: Monday February 9 2004 - 13:48:44 GMT

You're just "lucky", I guess, Andy. I still haven't heard a thing from her.

Poster: Hergio
Dated: Tuesday February 10 2004 - 4:43:25 GMT

Nothing here too, got nothing in response. I politely said her article was full of hot air and from reading her other articles, she has not the sufficient background to be judging such products the way she does. I thought it warranted a response....ehh well!
Maybe we could add a technical specs page about the menu, were we list the browsers support, sizes of files, number of effects with examples listed, number of edittable and customizable features, ya know a short and sweet jab about the menu.

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Sunday July 4 2004 - 20:32:16 BST

I kinda agree with her. When I first visited, I saw the various examples on display and I liked it. After I bought the license, I really had no idea what I was supposed to do in order to get the menu I wanted to create. No doubt, Milonic's Script(s) are great, but the general information on and the general layout of the site is quite confusing.

The site (at first glance), doesn't seem to detail how the user creates his/her menu. I went around in circles trying to figure this out. I was actually expecting a downloadable program that would allow me to create my menu. Then, I simply contacted Milonic Support with an image of what I wanted my menu to look like and they tried to make it look as similar as possible (to that image). A few correspondences and it looked even better, but me being a perfectionist, I wasn't quite happy. Emailed Milonic back, and never got a reply back. I knew I was being a bit too picky, but I never got a reply. So, I sat down and figured it out myself, making it exactly as I wanted it. Have a look on the left of the page at .....com

Anyway, I think the reviewer (Jennifer Kyrnin) has basically quickly glanced through the site... and that is what I would expect them to do. Please don't take it as negative criticism, but instead constructively. I think what Milonic Solutions must do is sit down with a professional web designing company in order to make the site easy to browse through, with neatly organised information. (Eg: more Q&A on the FAQ page with categories depending on the questions.) Oh, I would also like to see logos of all the browsers supported by Milonic's Scripts on the main page (another must). A nice flash animation quickly going through the various popular Milonic Scripts would be great. The horizontal menu on the site is quite inappropriate as the user has to hover over each category title to view the links available. It would be much more user-friendly if the links were instead neatly listed on the left-hand side. The 2nd link on the menu, "About Milonic", should really be the last one in the menu. (By the way, what's the left-hand side being used for ? Only for "You are logged in" and the "log-out" button ?? Come on, you should make better use of the space.) A new logo would also be great

Boy, enough said, over to you Milonic Solutions.

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Wednesday July 7 2004 - 20:30:12 BST

Hi Cøbra,


Well... they may reply, but in the meantime, since you've posted your opinions in a public forum, I hope you don't mind if I reply with mine. I'd like to emphasize that, even though I am shown as a "Team Member" in the forums, I am not employed by Milonic in any sense. My opinions are therefore my own, and may or may not be shared by the folks at Milonic Solutions.

Since you raised a lot of different points, it's easiest for me to address them point-by-point.


I guess it's pretty clear already that I don't. By extension I guess, I don't agree with much of what you mentioned.


And that really is the first goal of such a website, isn't it? To sell the company's product. On your first visit you liked the product. You eventually bought it (not clear whether that also was the first visit). So, I think your testimony here can only be taken as confirmation that the site's design and its contents are sufficient to achieve at least that first goal. The second goal is support. This is necessarily a secondary goal, because if the product isn't sold, then there are no users to support.


When you buy a license, you receive an email confirming the license details and directing you to the downloads page of the Milonic website, where you may download your licensed menu (now complete with license details already entered for you). It also tells you that you may download any of the samples and they will automatically include your license information. From there, it's pretty standard stuff for packages purchased and delivered over the web. You download the .zip (or the .tar.gz version - which, by the way, I think reflects Milonic's dedication to its customers; many sites do not provide multiple download formats). Once you have it, you naturally unzip the file then peruse the contents. It's fairly standard to find a readme.txt file that provides additional instructions. That's the case here; readme.txt directs the user to other .txt files in the same folder, like install.txt and howtobuild.txt, which explain how to install the menu scripts, how to load them into a page, and how to get started building the menu. How to get started is all right there in what you download and the site itself offers several other excellent resources for building, customizing, and fine tuning one's menu.


On this, we agree


On this, we disagree. Confusion is purely subjective. While I don't question that you personally found the site quite confusing, I myself do not and never have. Just because someone finds the site confusing doesn't mean that it is confusing to people in general.


The "first glance" at the site (or pretty much any site of this nature) is not meant to provide technical details or instructions to users after the purchase. The first glance at the site is all about marketing; it has to be for a product like this, because there are so few marketing vehicles availabe for it. "Here's a great product. Here's why it's great. Here's what it can do for you. Here's why you should buy it. Here's how much it costs."... that sort of thing. As I mentioned above, support comes next; it's not a "first glance" type of thing. Support usually takes a little more looking, althougth it shouldn't be difficult, and I don't think it is in this case (e.g., there's a "Support" menu).


I don't know where you could have gotten that idea! Certainly not from the website. The third sentence on the home page says: "Milonic provide one of the best, the quickest and the most feature rich javascript menu systems found anywhere on the planet." If the name of the product (Milonic DHTML Menus) and the first couple of sentences on the home page don't give it away, then "javascript menu system" should indicate that it's a script-based system. True, there could be (and in fact is) an application that can help you generate the menu_data script, but there's nothing on the site to make a visitor expect that. Quite the contrary I would think, especially to a web designer.


I think we can agree that this demonstrates a committment to customer service beyond what you'll find at most companies, especially given the comparatively low price of the product. Other than that, I'm not sure of the point here.


Has someone ever claimed to have sent you an email but you never got it? Miloinc receives quite a lot of email from customers. It's possible that this particular one was never received or, if it did get through, perhaps it went unnoticed (it happens from time to time even at the best companies). Did you try emailing again to see what was going on? Again, however, I don't know what this has to do with the site design or content. There are many resources available through milonic.com to help a user with menu creation and fine tuning, not the least of which are these forums, which many users visit to perfect their menu. The forums are immediately accessible under the "Support" item in the site's Main Menu... doesn't get much simpler than that.


I'm glad you got it the way you wanted it. But again, I'm left wondering what this has to do with the reviewer's criticisms. Regarding your own criticisms, I would think it's a good thing that a self-professed perfectionist was able to get it exactly the way he or she wanted it. So what was the problem? Did it take you too long? Was it too difficult to get it the way you wanted? Maybe I'm missing the point here...


We disagree here as well. I think that anyone who is to review a site or product should take the task very seriously and take the time to do a thoughtful, methodical, and thorough job. Quick glances are not enough, especially when a company's livlihood can be affected.


Speaking only for myself, I have never cared much for that sort of comment. It's kind of like saying, "Don't take this personally, but I think you're a bit fat." It's far easier to deliver a line like that than it is to be on the receiving end. After working hard on a site, you don't really want to hear criticism, regardless of its intent. Even when it's invited, "constructive" criticism isn't always easy to take. Plus, when measuring the value of constructive criticism, one has to consider its source, and I don't know that you've established yourself to Milonic as a web design authority (neither have I for that matter, so we're just talking personal opinions here really). I'm not saying that you aren't a genuine authority on web design. I'm just saying that I haven't seen evidence that you are. I'm sure there are some useful comments in what you've said, but it's still difficult for the receiving end (the people who created the site) to separate themselves on a personal level.


To me, this comment has the potential to be very insulting. It's predicated on the assumption that the site was designed by people who are not professionals. I think that's a pretty big assumption. Suppose the people who designed the site are professionals; do you think they'd find this comment insulting? I'd guess that the probability is high. Take five different "professionals" and you'll get five different designs, some of which may appeal to you and some of which may not. It's part of the nature of the web. Just because you find a design personally unappealing and don't see a "site designed by..." label doesn't mean that the site wasn't professionally designed.


In my opinion, the site is already well organized; it's one of the most neatly organized sites I've seen (and I've been browsing the web since its inception). I also find the site extremely easy to browse. Just a differing opinion I guess. I'm sure there's room here and there for improvement, but you make it sound like the whole site is in a shambles!


I'm not certain whether this is a comment about a need for a list of compatible browsers in general, or a comment about using the logos specifically. I'll assume the later, since the compatibilities are (and always have been) listed in text on the site's home page. I'll concede that logos would be a nice touch, but it certainly doesn't qualify as a "must." I think it's safe to assume that people visiting the site can read. Some might say that the logos would benefit those who are not fluent in English. Fine point. But if that were true, just seeing logos without the larger context, gained through reading the text, would be mostly useless. There's also the point that registered trademarks and logos shouldn't just be slapped on a site, and some exercise caution in that regard. Many companies have rules they want you to follow in order to use their logos and, if trademarks and logos are not used in a certain way, their use on a site can be illegal and actionable. Perhaps the Milonic folks chose to travel on the side of caution here.


Why would you want to use Flash to demonstrate a DHTML product? It'd be far better to use DHTML to demonstrate a DHTML product. Which is exactly what the site does with its many sample pages; easily accessible from any page on the site. The huge list of links to current menu users also accomplishes this goal by letting people see all sorts of real, live implementations of the menu system; seeing how others have already implemented the menu is better than a mocked-up demo. There are other reasons to avoid a Flash demo in my opinion. For one thing, there are still lots of dial-up users in the world, and they'd probably prefer not to wait while a Flash demo downloads. Also, many web designers understand that Flash can conflict with DHTML content in older browsers (it occupies the top layer above the DHTML, regardless of z-indexes). Visitors using such a browser might be turned off and turned away if they saw such a conflict on the site, mistakenly thinking that it was a weakness in the menu system. Such a result isn't consistent with the goal of selling a product. If you claim that your product works well in a wide variety of browsers, even old ones, then your site needs to function well and similarly in all of those browsers.


Inappropriate??! I'm completely flabbergasted by this comment. How could it be inappropriate for a site that makes and sells a navigational menu system to implement that system for navigation on their site? Inappropriate? Quite the contrary, I'd say that it is necessary. It's the first live implementation of the menu system that the site visitor sees. If we can assume that many people arrive at milonic.com through a search for website menu solutions (and I think that's a fair assumption), then I would most emphatically want a functioning menu system to be among the very first and most prominent things they see when they get to the site. To do otherwise would be to waste a perfect marketing opportunity. I would also want the menu to demonstrate many of the options the system has to offer. The menu on the site accomplishes all of these goals.

On a general usability note, hovering over menu items to see what they do is certainly not a stretch for most users. In fact, although there will always be disagreement, some experts recommend emulating common GUI elements (menus, buttons) to improve a site's usability and navigation scheme. This may be why such menus are becoming more common as a method of organizing navigation for large, complex sites. People who use any sort of applicaiton software know how menus work, so using such a menu is not procedurally difficult. Plus, someone actively seeking a menu solution can reasonably be expected to use such a system to navigate the site, getting a first-hand taste of how the system works.


Again, we disagree here. Have you counted the number of links your suggested approach would entail? Such a list, with reasonably-sized fonts, would certainly not fit the available vertical space (especially for users with lower resolutions). I for one strongly dislike sites that list all available links down one side or the other (or worse... both sides). I don't like having to scroll up and down looking for the link I want.


Why? I mean... why not, but at the same time... why? There's no compelling reason to do so, and it seems almost too minor to warrant mentioning. Maybe they put it there for a reason.


I don't get it. Define better? I already know what you'd have on the left side and have already disgreed on that score. So, where would you have them put the login function and login status? I think this comment represents an unfortunate approach that is becoming all too common on web sites: the "fill the available space" approach to design. Just because there's a space doesn't mean something has to go in it. I know that's not exactly what you said, but I'm left with that impression that's what you meant, since you didn't define "better use of he space." In my view, Milonic went for a "clean and simple" look and feel, and they did quite well in achieving it. In a time when many sites seem to be getting more and more cluttered, I like the "clean" look.


Again... why? It's up to them, of course, but I see nothing wrong with their current logo. In fact, a well-reasoned argument could be made that it's not a good idea to change logos. Over time, a logo becomes part of a company's identity, such that seeing the logo invokes some sense of a company's products and services. You can't achieve that goal if you just change your logo from time to time.

Jeez... I wrote a book! Sorry about that. I guess I feel pretty strongly about some of these comments. But long-winded as it may be, there you have my take on your take. As always, replies are welcome.

Kevin

Poster: John
Dated: Thursday July 8 2004 - 0:35:17 BST


<book>
Maybe so, but there's not one single point you made with which I disagree (and that's not just because we're both Team Members, either).

Just to be clear for Cøbra, I write web pages for a living. Have done so for over 13 years. The Milonic site is clean, easy to follow and use, has all the information needed right at hand, and, IMHO, needs no changes.
</book>

Poster: fredlongworthhighschool
Dated: Thursday July 8 2004 - 11:02:07 BST

Ditto. (see sig)

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Friday July 9 2004 - 8:36:25 BST

aggressive, stubborn, protective, closed-minded, arrogant... are some of the words coming to mind (after reading kevin3442's post)... after all, what's in it for me ? i could go on... but obviously, there's no point.

Poster: John
Dated: Friday July 9 2004 - 21:25:07 BST


Interesting that many of those same words come to my mind after reading your post.

Quite true. Given that Team Members (non-Milonic employees) and customers agree with us, it would seem you are in the minority.

It's unfortunate your mind isn't open to discussion, rather than its "you're right and the rest of the world is wrong" mentality. This could have been constructive.

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Saturday July 10 2004 - 0:39:51 BST

These are my personal suggestions and opinions. I don't think anywhere in my first post do I use "we" (the users). I never said I'm speaking for other users, did I ? It's all "I this.." and "I that..", so please, language like that quoted below is totally uncalled for.

This basically summarises to "**** you", doesn't it ? I believe there is room for improvement and I have given an honest opinion.

Again, why should I even bother ? I like what you're doing and want to help (improve). One says "This could have been constructive.", and it sounds like the other one's saying 'we don't need you here'... 'we don't give a toss what you think'...

here, this makes it fun :

__at__ Kevin: This is a still from the movie Matilda (1996) Genre: Comedy - Good movie, a must watch lmao


kevin3442 and John to Cøbra:
“I’m big, you’re small; I’m smart, you’re dumb; I’m right, you’re wrong; and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

loosen up guys, seriously.

Poster: kevin3442
Dated: Saturday July 10 2004 - 7:57:17 BST

Hello Cøbra,

At the risk of seeming aggressive, stubborn, protective, closed-minded, or arrogant, I'll go ahead and reply.


As were the opinions that I expressed my own, which I explicitly pointed out at the beginning of my comments. Besides, I guess I don't quite get your point here... John didn't say anything about you claiming to represent any sort of "we" or that you claimed to speak for other users. To the contrary, I'm pretty sure he was actually focusing on the "I" part of your comments.


To be fair, you did often use an "I think this and that" sort of approach in your earlier comments. But I also saw several comments that seemed more like authoritative pronouncements, like:


None of these comments were expressed along the lines of "I think..."; They were simply pronouncements. "I think" is fine. But in hindsight, if you look at it objectively, I think you might agree that some of your comments could have been put a little better (as could some of mine no doubt). I mean, put yourself in Milonic's shoes. If you had created the menu featured and sold on the site, would you like being told that, "The horizontal menu on the site is quite inappropriate"? I know I wouldn't. And if you had designed the site, would you like being told, "Come on, you should make better use of the space"? I'm guessing that you wouldn't. This is why I made the comment that criticism being offered constructively is not necessarily taken that way.

You also said:

While the last two are of the "I think" type, they also include a pronouncement of what Milonic "must" do... I focused on the "must" part. Perhaps I should have focused on the "I think" part a little more. I would also point out that I did agree with you that browser logos might be a nice touch; I just didn't think they were a "must". When put in terms of "must", it seems to me to be more of a demand than a suggestion. Maybe that's just me.


It absolutely does not mean **** you. That's not at all what I meant (talk about loosening up!...). That comment was not directed at you. I was simply offering what I thought was an accurate analogy to your comment; a type of comment that in my opinion can cause offense even if none is intended. And I seems that my example may have caused some offense, even though none was intended, which I think bolsters the point. Someone making the "fat" comment to someone else may be doing so in a genuine effort to help, out of concern for that person's health, personal image, sense of self, etc. But that doesn't mean the person on the receiving end is going to like hearing it or won't take it personally or negatively. Someone offering criticism, especially uninvited criticism, may actually mean well, as I suspect you genuinely did. But even though the criticizer says, "please don't take it as negative", the criticizee might (and in my opinion is likely to) take it negatively anyway. That's all I meant.


(the "other one" would be me of course) That may be your interpretation, but it's not at all what I meant. Like you, I never said anything about "we". I even explicitly stated at the outset that what I was expressing my own opinions. I also never said I don't give a toss what you think or that "we" don't need you here. I didn't even think that I implied any of those things. You are certainly welcome here, whether I give a toss what you think or not. You said we should loosen up. That could well be true. But it's probably a little true for you as well. Look... here's my perspective. You made many comments that I personally did not agree with and one that I found slightly offensive. I replied to them, addressing each one individually. In doing that, I tried to make clear why I didn't agree and asserted my own differing opinion. Each bit was in direct response to one of your bits. That's all. There was no overriding theme of "we don't give a toss" or anything like that. Just a simple point-by-point discussion of differing opinions. Believe it or not, I tried to be matter of fact, clear with my reasons, not personal, and not confrontative. Maybe I needed to try harder?

(all of these nested quotes are giving me a headache!)

You quoted the "fat" thing again so I'm thinking that it bothered you in some way. Again, I wasn't saying it at you. You boldfaced "constructively" and "Don't take this personally but I think you're a bit fat". If you did that because you're comparing the two phrases, I think the comparison is misplaced. Just to make clear what I meant, the analogous parts I had in mind were these:

my "Don't take this personally" to your "Please don't take it as negative criticism" and...

my "...but I think you're a bit fat" to your "...[but] The horizontal menu on the site is quite inappropriate.... It would be much more user-friendly if the links were instead neatly listed on the left-hand side.... Come on, you should make better use of the space.... etc."

Again, I meant it as an analogy, nothing more.

About fun...


The picture aside, I'm genuinely at a loss to see why that's fun, because in reply to John's comment:

(which accuses you of exactly the same attitude), you wrote that
.
Makes no sense to me??? In any case, as a general note, I'm not sure that being made fun of actually made it fun for me.

On another note... and I don't mean to seem like I'm piling on but... I have to say that I don't care for the picture you posted. I don't find the humor in a picture of a large, angry looking man shaking his finger threateningly at a small defenseless girl. You might think I'm stuffy or that I need to loosen up. Maybe fair points. It's also probably because I have a small daughter. I honestly see the point you were going for and the context, but still the picture bothers me. I'm not big on censorship (even though I'm closed-minded ), so I've left it. But I wonder if you would mind terribly if I asked you to please edit your post and either remove or replace the link to the picture (you know... Godzilla stomping Bambi or something like that). If you do that, then this part of my post will also disappear. Besides, just judging from the look of the big guy, I'd say the odds are good that the little girl is probably smarter than him.

Speaking of fun...


Although I can't find fault with the vocabulary or spelling, I have to say that I didn't find this to be very much fun either. I expected several possibilities... more disagreement, lively debate, more criticism, supporting arguments, etc. I didn't expect name calling. I simply disagreed with most of the points you made and I carefully explained why. How does that qualify as aggressive, etc? Plus, why make it personal? To quote another user on these forums:


You see? We agree on some things!

So... You made some points and expressed some opinions. I disagreed with almost every one of them and explained why in detail, expressing differing opinions along the way. Like I said earlier, I'm sure that there is some value in some of the points you made. I'm also sure that there are many out there who would agree with you. Just as I'm sure that there are many who would agree with me, and many who would disagree with both of us. That's one of the benefits of free societies. No biggie. I don't see a problem with genuine disagreement. But I do see a problem with name calling and mocking people here. Please don't do that in these forums.

In closing, I think we can agree that there's room for improvement on the site. We just may not agree on where that room is. I happen to know that Milonic Solutions has already been working on some redesign issues, so they too think there's room for improvement (that's true of pretty much any site, right?). I don't know a lot of the details, so I also don't know where they think that room is. But who knows, maybe some of the things you'd like to see happen will happen. Time will tell.

Another book, but that's me. It's probably why my thumb started twitching lately.

Kevin

** KINDA OFF-TOPIC **

Poster: Anonymous
Dated: Saturday July 10 2004 - 11:35:01 BST

The image I posted is a still from the movie Matilda (More Info at IMDB.com) [and that quote underneath the image is from that movie].

watch it brah, good movie, hope we'll agree on that one

Poster: Silent1
Dated: Friday December 9 2005 - 19:24:01 GMT

she is either insane or doesn't know sh1t about web programming. Just the repsonse about how she claims it doesn't say what browsers milonic works on. What a dumb bitch.

Poster: Andy
Dated: Wednesday December 21 2005 - 14:42:33 GMT

I had an email from her saying that she would make certain changes to the review to make it more accurate. This was like nearly 2 years ago and it still has not been changed

It's a pity people like her are able to do these things. Who is she anyway and what makes her an authority on these things?

I've all but given up on it anyway

Poster: kercheval
Dated: Thursday May 4 2006 - 19:14:13 BST

This is an old thread, but I can not help but throw in a few cents worth of comments.

First - That particular reviewer is one of the worst I have come across. Her comments lack detail and are often alarmingly innaccurate. Generally, that whole site is one that hits a lot in google but tends to be closed quickly for any particular topic and seems more like an ad aggregator and seach sink. So... I am a bit biased from her perspective.

As an individual who has been analyzing different systems recently, I think I have some perspective here and have some comments which may be of use to Milonic.

Her summary first claims that the menu is expensive. The cost of any product is almost completely about the cost of use, maintenance and value at the end product. The up front cash expended is typically nearly TRIVIAL compared to the costs associated with the engineer needed to use the product in implementation and to deal with ongoing maintenance of the site. Even the worldwide license costs are dwarfed by this consideration, so the harping on cost in this review is a bit strange.

One other observation here regarding costs. The Milonic menu has an active and knowledgeable user community, active development, responsive tech support and a straight forward usage model. Those considerations alone significantly more than justify the marginal cost elevations found in the Milonic menu versus the competition. It may be useful to point out these distinct advantages in the product info.

The other comment she seemed to harp on was complexity. I don't get that one at all. Every menu system I used was at least as complex unless the usage cases were trivial indeed (ie simple CSS based tabs or similar). Even those which had some sort of menu designer quickly degraded since the designers have no way to deal with updates in dynamic systems. Anyone attempting to create dynamic systems or embedded menus in a web application or sophisticated site will be using an API. The Milonic API is not more complex than others and much simpler than many. Additionally, Andy seems to have done some design with mulitple menu usage in mind since menu reference via variable is explicit and query to obtain menus dynamically is very simple to accomplish.

Having recently attempted to obtain information regarding specifics about Milonic menus, I can sympathize with her a bit about the comments regarding the accessibility of information available at the site and have some comments and suggestions of my own. I am not really looking for feedback here and don't really care if you disagree with me here so please just take these comments for what they are (opinions and comments by a first time visitor evaluating menu systems).

- General information and samples.

The samples section is quite good. I think that a few more samples are needed (Transparency in non IE browsers, use of the menu as a dropdown select control, some more CSS and relative positioning examples and last (but not least) a good sample using embedded HTML within the menu). Mostly the sample selection seems to compete well with others.

There is a list of supported browsers in the product info section, but it does need some updating (Firefox is not even present except for the unexpected moniker of Mozilla).

- API usage and references.

The site does have all of the references needed to do real custom work. I did need to spend quite a bit of time on the corporate site AND on the forum to find the references, however. It is a credit to the product and the user community that such things exist to the extent that they do, but I expected some specific single place of reference to be able to find all of this information and to be able to download and print it off. Note that many menu systems are MUCH worse this way (apycom, CooljsMenu, etc) and have little or no documentation AT ALL.

- Initial contact info

It was difficult for me to understand the method and expections to find out more information for evalution. Clearly the market segment for this sort of tool set is not dominated by large players with dedicated sales forces. At no time was I able to find any supplier which did a better job then Milonic, so you could view Milonic as best in class even though the revenue models force a do it yourself evaluation scheme.

I was also stymied a bit by the lack of official email contact. As email gets less and less reliable, I am seeing more foks use indirect techniques for communication. There was no method to attach image files (or container files like a zip file) for evaluation contact information. This was a frustrating thing for me, but relatively minor.

----

Not sure if this helps out as feedback, but I hope it does.

jbk

Poster: Andy
Dated: Tuesday May 16 2006 - 17:43:17 BST

This helps a lot and I'm already working on some of your points.

The one about the supported browsers is fundamental to anybody looking to use this system and I have already changed a few things on the home page as well as made a start on a specific page.

I am aware of many of the other issues but we seem to be spending all our time on tech support issues and unfortunately this means the site suffers.

We are currently blitzing the support and hope to back up to speed soon, I will address these issues again in due course.

Thanks very much,
Andy