Improving TXP Image Management

squaredeye · 2006-05-29 12:58:53

THanks Alex,
I’d like to take a look at it this week too.
I appreciate all your organizational work.

M

Tinshack · 2006-05-29 14:10:32

Hopefully I haven’t missed this in the 8 pages I just read: once thing I think can do with improvement is the image file naming. When you upload mydog.jpg TxP renames it to 2.jpg. The end result in your html code is something like /images/2.jpg. I personally prefer /images/mydog.jpg. By the way: I typically only use a few images for site design and to put into articles. I don’t really do galleries at the moment.

Am I maybe posting off topic?

marios · 2006-05-29 21:00:57

The last post is specifically important, consider all these cases, where you don’t use the image upload features,
(bypass).
You edit something in an external editor, you make some screenshots (goes in folder, und upload automatically to the server, not htrough txp)
you know the url pass beforehand, include in right there within your post and must rely on the fact, that you can not know the filename beforehand. This is odd)

However, I allreday mentioned it previously.

(Remember, at the current stage with the new image plugin (Dirk Steins fpx_image_import) any image folder
on your harddrive that you upload to the Server becomes a category by that name and gets the things in the database once you access the image tab in your backend)

marios

Last edited by marios (2006-05-29 21:01:43)

squaredeye · 2006-05-29 22:46:36

Tinshack, Marios,
I think these are good issues to raise. I think we are closer to writing something to bring to the devs about all of this.
If you are the praying type: pray. If you are the doing type: do. If you are the worrying type: drink.

I hope something comes of all of this work.

M :)

colak · 2006-05-30 06:24:54

Tinshack wrote:

Hopefully I haven’t missed this in the 8 pages I just read: once thing I think can do with improvement is the image file naming. When you upload mydog.jpg TxP renames it to 2.jpg. The end result in your html code is something like /images/2.jpg. I personally prefer /images/mydog.jpg. By the way: I typically only use a few images for site design and to put into articles. I don’t really do galleries at the moment.

The problem with this is what happens when the image name already exists in the db? Does txp replace it or does it give you an option to rename the new image?

If the user chooses to replace it and if the image has already been called in an article (wherever) and if the new image is different dimensions there will be problems.

I think that txp’s method of auto numbering each new image is the most hassle free.

wet · 2006-05-30 06:43:23

ma_smith wrote:

If you are the worrying type: drink.

If you are the drinking type: Worry. Rinse. Repeat.

;-)

Tinshack · 2006-05-30 07:23:25

colak wrote:

The problem with this is what happens when the image name already exists in the db? Does txp replace it or does it give you an option to rename the new image? I do think that txp’s method of auto numbering each new image is the most hassle free – I just don’t like it.

If the image already exists then the chances are that the user:

already knows. They really want to replace the image and that’s why they uploaded something with the same name. This would probably be a more computer-savvy user. Experienced users should be allowed to overwrite the existing file.
wasn’t paying attention and probably needs to rename the image anyway. This would probably be somebody who isn’t so clued up. Good guidence from the fancy new image management system should make this less painful for the user (give an overwrite warning – perhaps a thumbnail showing the existing and new image).

Any other take on the overwrite aspect? When writing the above I was thinking of images in articles – not galeries etc.

Innbound · 2006-05-30 07:31:30

To be honest, after reading all 8 pages, I’m more hopeful now than ever before. Being a certified disliker of anything Textile… all the tag-soup bs that should never be seen by a user imo… it is nice to see an effort to replace that mind-numbing crap with something that won’t be a good excuse for dropping TXP in favor of Wordpress. Actually, the learning curve I’ve seen in almost any cms is such bs that I still get much faster and more reliable results hand coding a site over using tag-laden cms’ – no matter how cliche one may be atm.

My 2 cents are this: I’ve had an easier time using images in Mediawiki than I have in TXP – which is sad – but that’s because it is simply more straight forward to use. TXP isn’t even competing image-wise with other similar blog boxes yet, actually, imo it can’t even really compete with the archivers yet. Also, Plug-ins are excuses, good for mock-ups but in the end they just tend to make software that’s more of a cult… ie a group of nerds walled off to the surrounding world by their own language – which isn’t friendly to anyone, eventually themselves, but especially to new users here in the now.

Think more along the lines of how you would go about merging Plogger with TXP. No one wants to be nailed down to having all their images and folders associated strictly with articles no matter how you title, categorize, publish or search them anyway. Think about the best solutions presented here so far: They leave TXP with no added features, they are only stream-lining existing features. If it gets done and done well… there would still not be much reason to not go with an install of Wordpress and Gallery2. Mashing blogging and image galleries in the end isn’t a real big step if afterward they are inseperable. It’s a tight-wire act to try and do so because it could leave TXP’s future as more of some kind of photoblogging thing-a-ma-bob instead of having full featured gallery type options that are always available, seperately, just there in case someone happens to need them to what ever degree they need them. Seperation has to exist before… why not after? Why this notion that every photo uploaded is for the exclusive use of TXP? Why not a system that more easily merges with others because it is more independant?

Meh, I’ll stop ranting, good work so far guys/gals. I’ll get some drinks when it happens.

colak · 2006-05-30 08:13:59

Tinshack wrote:

Any other take on the overwrite aspect? When writing the above I was thinking of images in articles – not galeries etc.

I thought this would be the case.
I manage a site with over 800 images (and growing) multiply this by 2 for their thumbnails. There is no way I can remember their names, not to mention that some have the same name in my computer (ie: untitled.jpg).

I also think that txp should cater not just for (see permissions) the administrator or the designer but also for the writers. Imagine a site with 10 writers. One uploads an image with the same name as somebody else’s and clicks replace. The particular image is called from an article which the particular writer has no editing rights for. What happens then?

If your suggestion is implemented I would wish for a similar permissions allocation for the images. ie a writer should not be able to edit/delete somebody else’s images

Last edited by colak (2006-05-30 08:14:20)

jameslomax · 2006-05-30 11:24:22

These are obviously relevant and important points, but can I suggest they are secondary to the more important considerations here:

workflow
user interface
user experience, not developer or administrator convenience

I think there are advantages and disadvantages to the txp image naming, and I’m not sure which method is best: retain the image name, or not.

What worries me though, is changing the way txp does this would presumably be quite a lot of work, when its not the most important change that’s needed.

alexandra · 2006-05-30 11:59:50

Just a short note to keep you updated: Nils did talk to Sencer about programming and tonight or tomorrow Nils and me will phone to get a first draft/concept out hopefully this week already. As well there are going some emails back and forth between Matthew, Nils and me to get things going/organized…

jameslomax · 2006-05-30 12:09:40

Yay, thanks Alex (and everyone). Not sure what Bastian is doing; he also mentioned he could contribute to this…..

Last edited by jameslomax (2006-05-30 12:15:02)

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#193 2006-05-29 12:58:53

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#194 2006-05-29 14:10:32

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#195 2006-05-29 21:00:57

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#196 2006-05-29 22:46:36

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#197 2006-05-30 06:24:54

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#198 2006-05-30 06:43:23

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#199 2006-05-30 07:23:25

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#200 2006-05-30 07:31:30

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#201 2006-05-30 08:13:59

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#202 2006-05-30 11:24:22

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#203 2006-05-30 11:59:50

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

#204 2006-05-30 12:09:40

Re: Improving TXP Image Management

Board footer