Attachments in fast reply much needed!

[Cyrem]

Yes. That's exactly what they should do. That's why his post is a compliment.

Sorry but...

[Rimi]

At the end of the day it's a fight between people who hate change and people who embrace it. I think IPS has developed an impressive editor and should take it one step further. Simply stating that someone's opinion is ridiculous with a reaction image without any backup to your claim is a good way to show off your stubborness though. The stubborness, again, shows your resilience to change. That is your character to keep things as they are and mine is to make things better. So we can agree to disagree.

[Cyrem]

your stubborness though

I'm stubborn because I think changing something for the sake of change is ridiculous? Please tell me this is a joke.

Seriously, I shouldn't even need to explain why removing the full editor is ridiculous.

I think IPS has developed an impressive editor.

They didn't make the editor, it's simply a feature reduced adaption. If you like the editor, you should be crediting the guys over at ckeditor.com.

[Rimi]

Well, I don't see things the way you do so I wouldn't mind if you finally explained your thought processes. Go ahead and explain why a full editor is necessary, I would appreciate the clarification. I might be missing something because I only see four extra options in the full editor, one of which is already in threads (following), two of which I don't think are necessary (disabling signatures and emoticons), and the last one which I have been saying should be added to the fast reply form.

They didn't make the editor, they've only adapted it.

Which is what I find to be impressive. I think you'd also find it impressive if you followed the ckeditor bug reports since 3.2 was released. It's come a very long way and the amount of development behind it isn't something I would easily disregard.

[sijad]

so you guys want an attachment option like button and popup to upload your files, and images goes to IP.gallery or ihost ? right?

[Cyrem]

Well, I don't see things the way you do so I wouldn't mind if you finally explained your thought processes. Go ahead and explain why a full editor is necessary, I would appreciate the clarification. I might be missing something because I only see four extra options in the full editor, one of which is already in threads (following), two of which I don't think are necessary (disabling signatures and emoticons), and the last one which I have been saying should be added to the fast reply form.

Don't get me wrong, I like usability... but in this case I do not.

If your one of those people who are always looking for ways to improve performance, reduce load and resource consumption... adding more overhead to every single page view is silly (see below for another reason I don't like it as it currently stands). Now, this might be okay for small forums, but on a large scale (like another person replied) when you have hundreds of visitors on at once, it's not so good. If the majority of those users are just their reading, there is no point serving them stuff they don't intend to use.

As I said above, I think the features of the quick editor should be reduced to better reflect it's purpose. And if a lightweight editor is put in just for quick reply, even better! This also gives the full editor back it's purpose. The full editor is supposed to be (as the name suggests) a big fully featured editor. The text of "Attach Files" could be changed to "Attach images/files" so that people recognize it better and the name of the button on the quick editor could be better named to indicate that their is more features in the full editor. As it stands, the button just sounds like it give you post options like following and other small little things, which is probably why your "casual" users don't bother to click it.

A moderator can manage polls from a full editor (even in replies) and there are also moderator options for what to do after. As you mentioned there is a follow checkbox. The full editor also allows for large applications to enhance it. There are apps for managing tables and forms on the full editor... something of which you simply would not add on a quick reply.

I could go on, but I think you should begin to understand it's advantages.

so you guys want an attachment option like button and popup to upload your files, and images goes to IP.gallery or ihost ? right?

They want it to work like the 'attach files' in full editor, thats all.

[Rimi]

so you guys want an attachment option like button and popup to upload your files, and images goes to IP.gallery or ihost ? right?

Well it could be any combination of things...I thing the images going to IP.gallery could be a separate topic of its own.

The basic thing that we (or maybe just me) want is a button in the fast reply that lets you attach files. Everything beyond thar is just other neat stuff.

[Rimi]

Don't get me wrong, I like usability... but in this case I do not.

If your one of those people who are always looking for ways to improve performance, reduce load and resource consumption... adding more overhead to every single page view is silly. Now, this might be okay for small forums, but on a large scale (like another person replied) when you have hundreds of visitors on at once, it's not so good. If the majority of those users are just their reading, there is no point serving them stuff they don't intend to use.

As I said above, I think the features of the quick editor should be reduced to better reflect it's purpose. And if a lightweight editor is put in just for quick reply, even better! This also gives the full editor back it's purpose. The full editor is supposed to be (as the name suggests) a big fully featured editor. The text of "Attach Files" could be changed to "Attach images/files" so that people recognize it better and the name of the button on the quick editor could be better named to indicate that you got more features. As it stands, the button just sounds like it give you post options like following and other small little things, which is probably why your "casual" users don't bother to click it.

A moderator can manage polls from a full editor (even in replies) and there are also moderator options for what to do after. As you mentioned there is a follow checkbox. The full editor also allows for large applications to enhance it. There are apps for managing tables and forms on the full editor... something of which you simply would not add on a quick reply.

I could go on, but I think you should begin to understand it's advantages.

They want it to work like the 'attach files' in full editor, thats all.

So yeah. That's what I said in one of my earlier posts...one option is to strip the fast reply editor (your option) and the other is to add attachments into the fast reply. It's load vs usability and I'm not convinced the load matters since topics already load up a lot of js as it is.

Basically we just went in a circle.

[• Jay •]

Yeah, I like this a lot. The only troubles I can think of are editing the first post and wanting to edit the topic title, tags, and poll.

1) Editing the first post: Works just like editing any other post - inline
2) Edit the topic title: It has its own page when you click the Topic Moderation button and Edit Title. Sorted.
3) Edit tags: Make a similar page and option as point 2 under Topic Moderation. Sorted.

Polls I'd have to think on a bit, but I'm sure our brighter minds could come up with something if they chose.

It's definitely doable.

[• Jay •]

So yeah. That's what I said in one of my earlier posts...one option is to strip the fast reply editor (your option) and the other is to add attachments into the fast reply. It's load vs usability and I'm not convinced the load matters since topics already load up a lot of js as it is.

Basically we just went in a circle.

Cyrem is making a wildly off-base assumption that it would require additional overhead on every page view. I know what Matt is capable of. If he chose to put in the ability to add attachments, they wouldn't come with a hefty price tag.

[Rimi]

I think tag editing could be done inline as a topic management option but that's another discussion entirely.

[Cyrem]

1) Editing the first post: Works just like editing any other post - inline

2) Edit the topic title: It has its own page when you click the Topic Moderation button and Edit Title. Sorted.

3) Edit tags: Make a similar page and option as point 2 under Topic Moderation. Sorted.

Polls I'd have to think on a bit, but I'm sure our brighter minds could come up with something if they chose.

It's definitely doable.

Take away the full editor and add a moderator page for topics? Might as well just keep the full editor which has the mod features anyway.

And what of all those mods that utilize the full editor? Are we also going to load them in on the quick editor?

Bfarber also said in another topic...

The vast majority of posts on a typical message board do not include attachments, and we wanted to keep the "quick" reply...quick. Thus, it's scaled back from the full posting page.

[Rimi]

What mods use the full editor?

Brandon says a lot of things. He also listens attentively to feedback and implements a lot of what he hears. See IP.Gallery.

[Cyrem]

Cyrem is making a wildly off-base assumption that it would require additional overhead on every page view.

Disable quick reply and check out the improved page load speed. Adding a flash uploader on top of this should increase the load time.

What mods use the full editor?

I mentioned two previously. Table manager, Forms mod and I even have a small hook for it. They are just the ones I am aware of.

[• Jay •]

Take away the full editor and add a moderator page for topics? Might as well just keep the full editor which has the mod features anyway.

What are you on about?

1) Topic title edit function already has its own page
2) Topic tags edit function could have it's own page, but you'd already be loading up the massive full edit mess anyway under the current system, so I don't see what your beef with that is.

[bfarber]

.... Developers are in favor of less settings. Casual end users are in favor of more settings. ...

Actually, yes developers favor less settings (keeps the code easier and more reliable), however casual end users ALSO favor less settings. Most end users just want to visit a site and use it, and have it work right from the go. They don't want to configure 8 pages of silly options.

Seasoned administrators are the ones who favor more settings, because they like to fine tune every aspect of the software once they have become familiar with it.

...

Bfarber also said in another topic...

...

Brandon says a lot of things. He also listens attentively to feedback and implements a lot of what he hears. See IP.Gallery.

I noticed no date in the quote. Keep in mind that things change over time. Things that may have been resource intensive may no longer be, expectations of how functionality on the internet changes as certain features become more mainstream, and so on.

[Heyhoe]

Having heard both sides of this "discussion" I think the options are:

To reduce the "quick reply" to BARE MIMIMUM. Hell, even no options, just text.

OR

Include the attachments system on the quick reply, (in one method or another) without dramatically increasing load times.


PERSONALLY, if IPS is to follow the lead in the modern interweb, I think making the Quick reply capable of attaching images/attachments would be the way to go. Having to load another page just to reply to a post is old hat in my opinion.

However, depending on the nature of your board/post then the full editor does have a place. But I would say 99% of posts made on most boards do not require the full editor (if attachments were in quick reply).

So, maybe have the quick reply as the "standard reply" and the full reply optional in ACP. Settings to enable the board to use one or the other, or both, would be nice.

I think there are lots of solutions to this problem, which actually seems to be making it harder to find the BEST solution.

I have faith in IPS though:)

[Rimi]

Actually, yes developers favor less settings (keeps the code easier and more reliable), however casual end users ALSO favor less settings. Most end users just want to visit a site and use it, and have it work right from the go. They don't want to configure 8 pages of silly options.

Seasoned administrators are the ones who favor more settings, because they like to fine tune every aspect of the software once they have become familiar with it.

I noticed no date in the quote. Keep in mind that things change over time. Things that may have been resource intensive may no longer be, expectations of how functionality on the internet changes as certain features become more mainstream, and so on.

When I said users in that sentence I actually meant the casual end administrators. I see many of them that want to customize something and the first thing they ask is if there's a setting for what they need. That's what I was referring to. So my bad. I agree with you about the users. When I join sites I hate having to configure things so that I don't receive email notifications and such.

[Dmacleo]

Bruni had posted a method to always load full editor before, there was small ajax issue with it but if it worked right I'd use it.
if wording of "More Reply Options" said "More Options and Attachments" this might clue in users and be a compromise.

[• Jay •]

Bruni had posted a method to always load full editor before, there was small ajax issue with it but if it worked right I'd use it.

if wording of "More Reply Options" said "More Options and Attachments" this might clue in users and be a compromise.

Frankly, it'd just need to say "Attachments" because that's all a regular user gets. Moderators should be used to the site enough to know there's a couple tricks on that page too.

[Jaymez]

I think adding the "show attchments in fast reply" option per category/forum, but having it off by default would be a good solution. I want it in fast reply in some situations and not in others (albeit mostly in the tracker).

[Soniceffect]

Just saw this topic and thought I would reply even though it is old. I almost converted my forum over to IPB however for me the inability to upload images in a simple fashion from the quick reply has been a complete showstopper and prevented me from doing so.

[AutoItScript]

Why not just add an attachment icon, a paper clip or something, into the fast reply toolbar. Make it open up the full editor.

[Aiwa]

Why not just add an attachment icon, a paper clip or something, into the fast reply toolbar. Make it open up the full editor.

Then you have redundant links...

[AutoItScript]

Then you have redundant links...

I don't have a problem with the current system. I've never had feedback that my users are unable to find how to attach. Just suggesting an easy way someone could mod their board to help users who are unable to work out how to attach from quick reply without adding any overhead :)