Author Topic: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?  (Read 590 times)

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« on: June 03, 2017, 12:47:21 PM »
When people use a tool on a daily basis, they tend to forget about the 'weird' aspects of the tool, since they've learned to work around them.

We, as a community that builds websites based on WebsiteBaker, are no exception. While WB has evolved in many ways to be a very reliable and versatile CMS, some aspects of the CMS are outdated and surpassed by how the 'competition' does it.
 
Take for instance the way we have to handle MEDIA.

If a site-owner (our client!) wants to create a new page, or a news-item, we have to teach him to go into MEDIA first, then upload a picture, remember where that picture went, create the new page/news-item and only then he can add an image to the new page or article. Insane, IMHO.

What's even worse: some websitebuilders have a blind spot for what a site-owner can and can't do - or what he WANTS to do. We expect him to add that picture 'somewhere' in the text, know how to make it float left or right, know how to add classes to it etc etc. In my experience, site-owners don't want to do that, they don't know how to do it and they don't want to know how to do it. They expect the CMS to take care of things.
 
As they should!
 
It is OUR job to make that website behave so that the owner can edit/add content in the easiest way possible.
 
Now since OneForAll came along, I have been building websites around various adaptations of that module. Why? Because OFA allows me to 'pre-bake' things for my clients so all they have to do is fill out the form in the backend, literally DROP images they want to use and save the thing. The CMS (and OFA) does the rest. Wonderful!
And where pictures are involved, I even use SLIR in EVERY website now to make sure the pictures are shown in the right dimensions and aspect ratios, regardless what the site owner dropped in the backend. I love it. And more importantly: my clients love it.
 
Wouldn't it be GREAT to have a "drop your picture" module that can be used as a SECTION, alongside any WYSIWYG-section, so we can have "Featured images" for a page, just like WordPress has had for so long already? Isn't it possible to create a module around the PLUPLOAD-part of OFA, to act as a stand-alone module?
 
Because yes, I _love_ WB, most certainly in combination with OFA and all the snippets. I modify and juggle the modules around to make them do exactly what I want and I wouldn't want to switch CMS's ever. But there is room for improvement in that MEDIA-part of the site.
 
And that concludes my 0,02 for this Saturday :) Have a great day everyone!
 

Offline sky writer

  • Posts: 843
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2017, 04:21:41 PM »
 (Y)

You have mentioned SLIR before.  I'm interested in what this accomplishes exactly, how it presents itself in the admin, and how difficult it is to implement into WB.  I've gone to the github page, but it looks old (2105) and I simply don't understand it.  :?

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2017, 04:45:15 PM »
I'll write a 'support' topic on SLIR soon. It's beyond the scope of WB so it should not be in this part of the forum ;) I'll let you know!

Offline crnogorac081

  • Posts: 1832
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2017, 01:47:15 AM »
You can always use a dropzone container its easy to code. examples in attachment.
no bb in signature

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2017, 10:45:25 AM »
You can always use a dropzone container its easy to code. examples in attachment.
There are no examples in the attachment. Just two screenshots.
 
But what you show there is essentially what would be needed. A 'dropzone', allowing to drop one 'featured image' for the page. Resizing it on upload.
Template would take care of image placement etc.
 

Offline DarkViper

  • Core Development
  • *****
  • Posts: 2838
  • Gender: Female
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2017, 01:15:34 PM »
Why in the present time everything has to be chewed?
It usually helps to activate a few additional brain cells.. and explore http://www.dropzonejs.com/.  Just to get some ideas..   8-)
And no, the Dev-Team is not taking a summer break. We are fully utilized with the development of the new WB version.

have a nice day
Der blaue Planet - er ist nicht unser Eigentum - wir haben ihn nur von unseren Nachkommen geliehen

"You have to take the men as they are ... but you can not leave them like that !!" :-P
Ein einziger Buchstabendreher kann einen ganzen Satz urinieren.

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2017, 05:39:45 PM »
Why in the present time everything has to be chewed?
Chewed?? Where did this come from?

I was merely making a suggestion on how to make the core of WB even better by having a 'feature image' possible on a page... 'Activate additional brain cells'? Is this the way you reply to people who try to think constructive towards an even better WB-CMS?
 
I think I'll keep my thoughts to myself next time if that's the case.

Have a good day too. Get some coffee. Sounds like you need it.

Offline sky writer

  • Posts: 843
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2017, 08:26:27 PM »
Please don't keep your thoughts to yourself.  The community can seem quite dormant at times, so when someone comes up with a forward thinking post like yours, it sparks some new life and thought into the place.  It actually surprises... or frightens me, not sure which, that there is so little feedback and conversation from other forum members when a new idea like this comes up.  WHERE IS EVERYONE???

And no, the Dev-Team is not taking a summer break. We are fully utilized with the development of the new WB version.
Not sure what brought this statement on.  I don't see anyone implying the Dev-Team is being lazy, or even that they should look into this.  I just see a user putting forth an idea.  Perhaps this is all sarcasm lost in translation.  In which case, it's unfortunate if the outcome is another valuable user losing interest in contributing ideas and support to WB.

Peace.

Offline Hans

  • Posts: 903
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2017, 09:14:08 PM »
I  second the first post of CodeALot. I remember how it was possible, years ago, to add images while being busy with the text in admin. Don't know why that possibility has disappeared. Maybe for security reasons, but are those reason still valid / to overcome in the new versions?

Of course it it is possible to add some CSS to the template and instruct the client to add a simple class to the image so that image is floated left or right and has standard margins. It could be even a standard class added to
Code:
Only registered users can see contents. Please click here to Register or Login.
But I too would welcome an easy way to add images that are resized automatically. There are modules (MiniGallery from Ruud afaik) that make that possible, so why not use that as a start to make that a core feature or (maybe as a  temporary solution, a module ?

@manuela: dropzonejs.com gives a 404

Let's all be there with an open mind for the benefit of WebsiteBaker and it's users and be glad if new ideas come up. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with well documented suggestions, on the contrary.

Hans

Hans - Nijmegen - The Netherlands

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2017, 10:40:24 PM »

Of course it it is possible to add some CSS to the template and instruct the client to add a simple class to the image so that image is floated left or right and has standard margins. It could be even a standard class added to

Sure, that's what I do now too, in most cases. Regardless of what the user does, the image is shown as defined in the design of the website. That's not really the problem. But like I said: compare it to the 'template' you can define in OneForAll. The placement of [IMAGE], [IMAGES] etc can be a "fixed" thing, while uploading the images in the backend is really easy.

And that's why I wrote my post. While doing instruction sessions for my clients, I noticed that uploading and using images from the MEDIA-part of WB raises many questions. Many clients don't understand the workflow, and I can see why. That's why I wrote my "wouldn't it be nice if..." message here.
 
I never implied or meant to imply that I thought anyone was being lazy. I just posted a suggestion.

Right now my days are very full working on projects for clients, but if things get a little more quiet, I will sure look into the 'dropzone' solution to see if I can come up with some kind of module to add a 'Dropzone'-section.

Offline sky writer

  • Posts: 843
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2017, 10:48:00 PM »
I'm just trying to fully understand things, so please excuse me if I am not up to speed.

It sounds like you can do what you want with the OFA module... so why do you not want to use a custom OFA module for this purpose?  I'm sure I am just missing something in how you are trying to simplify the process.

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2017, 11:26:16 PM »
No, the OFA module is VERY versatile, but not for this purpose :-)
 
Imagine a simple page, with just one WYSIWYG-section.
In that section, you can add text, images, whatever, just like you always do.
 
What I would want, is to be able to add another section to that page. Let's call it "ImageDrop".

In my template, I would call the WYSIWYG-section as PAGE_CONTENT(1) and the ImageDrop as PAGE_CONTENT(2).
That way, I could easily "pre-bake" how and where the image from that second section would be shown. My client would then only have to add text in the first section, drop an image in the second section, and the CMS would take care of the rest.
 
I _could_ (and have!) use OFA for this, but that would mean that all the pages would be within one OFA-page. Not exactly what I had in mind :-)

Offline crnogorac081

  • Posts: 1832
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2017, 10:19:14 AM »
i attached tutorial package, also a screenshoot how it can be done under media administration.
no bb in signature

Offline jacobi22

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4374
  • Gender: Male
    • Jacobi22
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2017, 12:26:49 PM »
Quote
@manuela: dropzonejs.com gives a 404

404?? - not for me, it works without problems in multiple test's on different day's

my personal opinion
- two different places - 1. media administration - 2. section editing in wysiwyg editor

to #1 - media administration
a solution via dropzone, pluploader (like OFA), fineuploader (like Foldergallery) etc looks (for me) very simple. Big Problem here: what kind of uploader is the best (for every solution/uploader you found also negative posts in the web) and does it work for every user in every browser?? Can i use this third-party-addon also in 2020 (for free/open source), the EOL for WB 2.10.x or is it needed, to upgrade this every mounths? from my point, best solution for me is dropzone, very small, very simple to integrate it into the backend theme, but... we work only with the DefaultTheme (ACP-Theme), whats happend with the other themes like the example from crnogorac081? its of course possible, to write a tutorial for that or to give help in the integration, if somebody make the service for this theme.
at this point, this day, i'm not sure, what happend in the media administration in the next wb-version > WB 2.11, we talk a lot about the construct, the basics, but not in details. But if we add a solution now, in the next coming WB 2.10.1, we can use it for the next four years in WB 2.10.x and WB 2.11.x at minimum

to #2 - section editing in wysiwyg editor
the wysiwyg editor like our prefered ckeditor has a own image handling, working with a plugin. this ckeditor has also a integrated file browser, but disabled at the moment, because, it works unsafe in the case of user group permissions . that means, in special cases, specially on pages with different admin groups, its possible, that a user get the permission to upload/delete pictures in a group with no permissions for that, if there is also another group as page admin with permissions for that.
the file browser works without problems (or no reported problems  :roll: ), if you're a single admin on this page.
the file browser is a globale element in the ckeditor and use only some predefined paths and some special defined functions to get the permissions.
From my point and without test's, its also possible to add here a uploader-addon like dropzone etc, but you need then a wb-own plugin or wb-own filebrowser, that disabled the original, only possible to upgrade via module-upgrade (at the moment, its possible, to upgrade the ckeditor on a private way via upload from the build-config.js)
also from my point and without test's: no chance to add a dropzone inside of the wysiwyg-form and maybe moving the dropped picture via drag&drop to the wished position (i remember that I had seen such a solution before in a different system)

Quote from: sky writer
I don't see anyone implying the Dev-Team is being lazy, or even that they should look into this.
stay cool  :wink:
it was only a additional information, because, it looks maybe quite to the outside, but there are a lot of things to do in the background (change all projects to https, upgrade the forum, re-order the whole permissions there, working on the tickets, prepared the WB 2.10.1-Test etc, etc,
read the words as: we stay here and we read also everything  :wink: :wink: :wink:
Und obwohl es so aussieht wie früher, alles gewohnt und so vertraut, ist doch alles anders, ist es irgendwie anders unter der Haut
Kuult - Unter der Haut

Offline crnogorac081

  • Posts: 1832
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2017, 01:22:21 PM »
You are true about ckeditor and image browser, that is why I create custom toolbar for user without filebrowser plugin and I let them to upload/delete/edit files from specific folder (see my screenshoot from attachment from first post), so that user who has access to specific module/tool can manage images from specific folder. Its a best way not to create mess.
no bb in signature

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2017, 01:24:57 PM »
I think I'll give up.
My suggestion has nothing to do with MEDIA ADMIN or WYSIWYG.

I tried. Obviously I wasn't clear enough but ok. Never mind.

Offline crnogorac081

  • Posts: 1832
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2017, 01:34:09 PM »
what i posted is html5/jq , its not a 10 year solution  but it modern and easy to use nowdays.
Also its not possible to use same chunk of code for every module. Each dev must implement this in his own work. @CodeALot , i have it bro for my modules :D But I cant make it for the core because it will be overwritten on next upgrade.
no bb in signature

Offline jacobi22

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4374
  • Gender: Male
    • Jacobi22
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2017, 01:38:01 PM »
Quote
My suggestion has nothing to do with MEDIA ADMIN or WYSIWYG.
then sorry for my posting  :oops: :oops:
Und obwohl es so aussieht wie früher, alles gewohnt und so vertraut, ist doch alles anders, ist es irgendwie anders unter der Haut
Kuult - Unter der Haut

Offline DarkViper

  • Core Development
  • *****
  • Posts: 2838
  • Gender: Female
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2017, 02:28:22 PM »
Just as an info:
For future versions, it is my personal goal to create an interface package that encapsulates one or several 'uploaders'. And this makes it so globally applicable. No matter whether media management or any addon.
In my opinion this simplifies the inclusion of an uploader both for us and for all module developers. It does not matter which uploader is used. Everyone is then controlled by the interface exactly in the same way and is also interchangeable at any time without any changes.

Manuela
Der blaue Planet - er ist nicht unser Eigentum - wir haben ihn nur von unseren Nachkommen geliehen

"You have to take the men as they are ... but you can not leave them like that !!" :-P
Ein einziger Buchstabendreher kann einen ganzen Satz urinieren.

Offline johnbroeckaert

  • Posts: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2017, 09:28:25 PM »
With the risk i 've been shot down by this community  8-)

Had Beesign no back end theme  with a upload for media files inwich you could choose out of three options ( big medium and small)

By the way, I stayed here  :-D

Offline CodeALot

  • Posts: 346
  • Gender: Male
Re: How about updating the way we handle MEDIA?
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2017, 10:45:42 PM »
Quote
My suggestion has nothing to do with MEDIA ADMIN or WYSIWYG.
then sorry for my posting  :oops: :oops:

I appreciate EVERY contribution to the forum :) But I'm afraid I didn't get across what I actually meant. Maybe I should make a "mock-up" screenshot of what I would like to have :)