Jump to content

Video Embeds to Gallery


Gimpymoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Management

I wouldn't completely rule it out, but it's unlikely. We've agreed internally we can (and want to) do it, but we feel plopping it in without doing it properly would lend to a poor experience - so we want to do it the right way and because it would require breaking away from the "image" mode a bit, we want to do enhance video support overall - so we'll likely do it all at once. I wouldn't be comfortable giving you a timeline, but it's not years away or anything. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good news is, we have concluded this is a fantastic idea and we would like to pursue it (and more.) The bad news is, after I brought this up internally, the developers had a page of considerations that I hadn't even begun to think of (which is the point of our review procedure) and because Gallery is so very image centric, it would take quite a bit of effort to add this in a way that is both reliable and not confusing. So, we will be looking to do this, video enhancements and more - but I'm afraid it will not make it into IPS4.1. 

 

Can I ask how this is confusing?  There's already a fairly successful third-party application by @onlyME that exclusively uses video embeds.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask how this is confusing?  There's already a fairly successful third-party application by @onlyME that exclusively uses video embeds.  

I assume they want to put the work into redesigning the gallery application for advanced video support with dedicated features, rather than just adding video embeds to the existing UI.

Edited by Lukeroge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Management

Can I ask how this is confusing?  There's already a fairly successful third-party application by @onlyME that exclusively uses video embeds.  

No, you may not ask. Since you did though... :) that third party app is not shoehorning video embed support into an application that was designed pretty much exclusively to handle images - this topic is about video embeds within Gallery. Incidentally, one of the internal thoughts was to create a separate app exclusively for video support. I didn't like this idea as I'd prefer Gallery to become more of a "media manager" than forcing two applications for something I personally feel should be handled with one. I think that's ultimately the direction we will take. As it stands, Gallery is just not designed for video embeds. Some of the many concerns brought forth include: album handling, permissions, the actual submission process which is entirely upload-centric, external consistency (i.e.: if we allow external videos, do we allow external images), do we support playlists, dealing with APIs to generate thumbnails and perhaps most importantly, ensuring we don't alienate current users of Gallery who want to use it as ... a Gallery. 

This seemed like an easy concept to me as well, to be honest. That's why we've introduced all of these internal processes with IPS4... so all angles are covered appropriately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you may not ask. Since you did though... :) that third party app is not shoehorning video embed support into an application that was designed pretty much exclusively to handle images - this topic is about video embeds within Gallery. Incidentally, one of the internal thoughts was to create a separate app exclusively for video support. I didn't like this idea as I'd prefer Gallery to become more of a "media manager" than forcing two applications for something I personally feel should be handled with one. I think that's ultimately the direction we will take. As it stands, Gallery is just not designed for video embeds. Some of the many concerns brought forth include: album handling, permissions, the actual submission process which is entirely upload-centric, external consistency (i.e.: if we allow external videos, do we allow external images), do we support playlists, dealing with APIs to generate thumbnails and perhaps most importantly, ensuring we don't alienate current users of Gallery who want to use it as ... a Gallery. 

This seemed like an easy concept to me as well, to be honest. That's why we've introduced all of these internal processes with IPS4... so all angles are covered appropriately. 

I agree with the concept of the gallery as a media manager/sharer, and expanding it to videos (and possibly even audio in the future?) would make it a lot more valuable for me! I think as long as things are configurable enough (stuff making a video only section, for example) most users should be happy with the extra value for their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting concerns.  Some of my (unsolicited) feedback, in no particular order:

1.  I can see video embedding or video support as taking a lot of additional work.  So with that said, I can see IP.Photos (by the way, that's the new name of IP.Gallery) being upsold as ... (drumroll please) ... IP.Media!  

Another approach, and this is my open thinking, is to utilize the functionality already available in IP.Downloads and to rebrand that app as a resource manager (with support for external photos, external videos, external files, etc.).  

A third approach, and this is my thinking going off the rails, is why limit the embeds to one app?  Just offer the custom media codes in the Core, and then let people externally embed wherever and whatever they want into Pages, Downloads, Gallery, etc.  You already built the custom media codes in Core, so just publish a video gallery template in IP.Pages like you did as an example in v3 and ... done!     

2.  Going back to solely IP.Gallery, I view it as inevitable that people are going to want to mix videos and photos at the item level, so you might as well build it properly from the very beginning.  My analogy is people complaining about boards just for Q&A versus regular topics.  

3.  Permissions: ummm, just add more permissions specific to video embeds?  Add / View Video / View Thumbnail / Edit?

4.  Album Handling: not sure how that's affected at all.  An album holds stuff.  That stuff can be music mp3, photo images, video files, or video embeds.  But the album itself and it's settings, permissions, description, and who can upload or moderate, is all at the album-level and not at the stuff-level, right?  I'm probably grossly oversimplifying.     

5.  Uploading: I can see how upload queue might be dramatically changed.  But that's why you have devs, right??  To me though, IP.Downloads offers both file uploading AND links to third-party sites, so the precedent has already been established in another app.   Here's proof:

Not_So_New.thumb.PNG.0c8dd283c6614079ee3

6.  External consistency: interesting, and yes

7.  Playlists: interesting, and maybe. One brainstorm is to rename "slideshow" into "playlists," and let the lightbox automatically move to the next media item.

8.  Thumbnails: interesting, and maybe if it's well-supported by the video service?  This will probably be requested.  My gut says no, put the burden on users to upload their own thumbnails.  

9.  Alienation: not my personal concern but good luck figuring it out on your end.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the downloads idea. Downloads is a different type of product, it's not designed to be a highly visual collection of quickly consumable media like the gallery is.

The gallery content browsing UX is already highly suited to the addition of videos, it's only the management and posting side of it that needs any large changes.

Albums and playlists could be considered the same thing, so why not just use the existing album functionality. The naming could be an issue, but there are ways to fix that.

Thumbnails are easy for some services like YouTube, but others may be harder to work out. Generating custom video thumbnails locally isn't really an easy task either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for embedding external images... I'm not sure. I'd rather have images all locally hosted with the gallery, but then you have the odd situation where you can have external videos but not external images. I think that might just be an inconsistency we have to live with, as the reality is that locally hosting images is simple and easy while locally hosting video is a much harder task to do correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

perhaps most importantly, ensuring we don't alienate current users of Gallery who want to use it as ... a Gallery.

Well you can currently upload videos to Gallery... so it already has video capability... just not embedding. So it won't alienate anyone.

And no need to change the name as suggested above. Lots of Galleries have video, a gallery is just a place to view art. Art galleries shows films. And as stated Gallery already has video.

I have no need for embedding images in a gallery. Galleries should be for uploading images, and for video, the ability to embed video seamlessly where it looks the same as an upload. The reason for embedding = bandwidth. Videos can be super high in gigs. I am not interested at all in streaming those. In fact I keep uploads off. That's why I need embedding.

:)  

Offer embeds with category permissions to control and I am happy.

Edited by chilihead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have video enabled, and the upload button is there, just add an embed button.

Really how hard is that Lindy? :D

Seriously though since Gallery already offers video why not just add an embed field? It just seems obvious to me. Consider the rest of what you mentioned for a further release but video is video and it has it already, just not embeds. I'm not taking about the time to program, obviously it will take time, but the whole thought process you mentioned. It's just another way to display the same video. Like the insert from URL field in the editor vs. attachment. 

Edited by chilihead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lindy Thank you for for the informative replies to this thread.

You are right to be processing this as a "Media Manager", that to me makes more sense and moving forward is the right steps to be taking in my opinion. External image embeds are a must if you are following this path.

Without sounding like an ass, why were Videos added to the gallery in such an half assed way as to someone knowing no better, it can easily be assumed it was "stuck on" without the same processes you are following regarding these revisions.

I look forward to seeing IP.Media Manager sometimes in the future :)

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I was thinking about this embedding videos. As we know the gallery ( even with all its other problems) can upload photos and videos. These files are owned by the member and will be uploaded from their phones or cameras ( or other storage places) directly. IF we include embedded videos that means members will be tempted to add youtube videos ( for example) that dont belong to them. Is this surely not the case?   I dont want my gallery filled with all sorts of youtube videos embedded just because they can do so.

I know it will all be in the guidelines of course... please only add content that is your own

"Oh look at my gallery albums filled with exciting youtube videos of people diving off cliffs without parachutes"

"Hey man you embedded the same youtube vids as I did? Now we got lots of duplicate crap filling this site"

Dont you think most members will simple embed ANYTHING just cos they can?

Edited by kar3n2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chilihead said:

That can happen in any app and with images as well.

Most people use Gallery to show their own content, if you are having a problem with this, I'd suggest moderation and/or clear rules.

yeah definitely.  I guess some sites dont mind people adding other peoples stuff as at end of day it does give some content.   But for me I think adding your own stuff is far nicer. ( it just depends what the niche of the site is really eh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Karen,

I've used Michael's Videos System for years which allows your members to embed videos from YouTube, Vimeo etc into a 'video gallery'.

I can't say I've ever noticed those sorts of issues at all, so I don't think they'd be issues if IPS finally added this type of functionality to Gallery after what seems like for ever.  As Chilihead says, category descriptions and rules, whether you have a general category for misc videos etc and moderation (I've never had to moderate a members videos) all combine to prevent these issues. 

Videos System also has an option to enable or disable check for duplicates too. I think if Gallery had these options it would work fine.

I like having my video content seperate from photos, but I guess you could always have Images and Videos as two main categories in the Gallery. But I have one or two communities that don't have the budget for a seperate add-on for videos, they'd benefit from having better embed-able video support in Gallery.

Regards,

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/5/2016 at 11:00 PM, kar3n2 said:

I was thinking about this embedding videos. As we know the gallery ( even with all its other problems) can upload photos and videos. These files are owned by the member and will be uploaded from their phones or cameras ( or other storage places) directly. IF we include embedded videos that means members will be tempted to add youtube videos ( for example) that dont belong to them. Is this surely not the case?

My members create their own videos.

Youtube hosting is free and reliable and it just works.

What is the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gimpymoo said:

My members create their own videos.

Youtube hosting is free and reliable and it just works.

What is the problem?

Oh one of my problems with members uploading their own videos is that there doesn't seem to a way to add a cover image and it just shows up as an ugly black space 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...