I am considering using the MultiPowUpload control from element-it on a project, as well as perhaps on a second. Does anyone have any feedback on that particular control? Does it actually work as advertised, handle errors well, etc?
I've played with quite a few others, but that seems the best so far. The easiest for the junior members to get off and going with, nearly all features out of the box, etc.
Some of what I need to do:
Multi-select of files (from a single 'browse' click, not multi-textbox)
Progress bar (client requirement)
Queue for upload (it's ok if it can only upload immediately)
Feedback from server - custom error messages (permissions,etc)
Pass the session ID automatically, but I can use a URL hack for the upload page too
Be able to remove files from the queue
Support large files (~50MB, really up to 300mb would be perfect)
Accessible/usable JS api
Can change the view style a little bit at least!
Localizable - we need english, chinese, italian, and possible a few others
Resume incomplete transfers (eg, connection dropped, so on, not required, but ++)
I've been working with all of these below, and gotten most of them working in demo pages, finding issues as I go along.
Fancy Upload - quite nice, but no feedback from server, uses mootools not jq
MultiPowUpload - looks good, resumes, no flash cookie bug, $149
Uploadify - looks reasonable, real world though?
YUI - mostly custom code, will work but tedious
SWFUpload - no progress bar, otherwise pretty basic & good
JQuery Multifile (fyneworks.com) - inconsistent browser support
devex / telerek - missing to many required features, sadly
PL UPload - nice, but missing 'retry' and error reporting. may be able to add
So, does anyone have any real-world experience with MultiPowUpload, or have suggestions for a free or commercial option?
PL UPLOAD WON - for now! If we get complaints, or find it doesn't work in our real life scenarios, then we'll consider switching to MultiPowUpload. But it is good enough, and we can write some JS to do a few of the missing things. With chunking I had no problems with 300mb uploads. Yay.
Did U try this one.
Plupload
Allows you to upload files using HTML5 Gears, Silverlight, Flash,
BrowserPlus or normal forms, providing some unique features such as
upload progress, image resizing and chunked uploads.
Related
I'm not asking for detailed code for this question, but rather solid direction to learn how to do it myself. There appears to be many methods and directions so just looking for a headstart from someone experienced.
I have a simple file upload control. I want it to operate as an ajax upload, no page-refresh, and if I'm understanding correctly I need http handler that grabs the image and deals with it behind the scenes.
So I need to create a custom control, a new file upload that allows me to set some properties, such as... Path for the image, prefix for three different types (I.e. thm_uniqueimagename.jpg, med_uniqueimagename.jpg, lg_uniqueimagename.jpg) and an option to either KeepOriginal="True/False".
I'd like to see a progress bar while the image is uploading as well. A fantastic example would be a post on Facebook and how you can upload an image.
Right now I'm stuck with a standard upload control that has full post-back/refresh and it's just not nearly as attractive.
I'm just now learning VB... So basically if you can say... Read this tutorial, then do this, then do this... that would be greatly helpful. Just overwhelmed with what to do first, and how to put it all together.
Platform: Windows, .net, etc.
Thank you for any advice.
If you want a better user experience, then I suggest you investigate some solutions like the following:
ASP.NET AJAX file upload
AjaxFileUpload.
Note: If you read the documentation for the ASP.NET AJAX AjaxFileUploader, it says that it requires HTML5 for the progress feedback; otherwise it shows a spinner. So if progress feedback is a necessity and you cannot fully support HTML5 in your target browsers (i.e. older versions of IE; IE6, IE7, IE8, etc.), then you should look into the options below.
Custom HTTP module
NeatUpload is a free option.
Silverlight/Flash option
SWFUpload is a free option.
Asynchronous chunking option
RadAsyncUpload - Telerik's ASP.NET AsyncUpload is a pay option, check website for pricing.
I'm building a Bridge game.
The main page, where you play the game, boast some 200 controls, like buttons that represents the 52 cards, 26 others for won / lost tricks, plenty of text fields... You name it, total some 200.
Actually its been already built and runs under Winforms model, but with the unavoidable question of implementing .NET 4.0 onto user's machine that must run Windows, and installing the software.
Hence I'm considering creating an ASP version (no PHP please, since I'm fluent in VB, and ignorant in C, Java, PHP and the likes).
Is that a "real" option or am I dreaming?
Will it run smoothly for users with a 2MB DSL connection?
Oh, by the way, no MVC please, I'm too old for that sort of sh...t :->
Can it be done? Sure.
The problem for you might be that to do it effectivly you will need to use HTML, CSS, Javascript and the like.
What most likely would be a good idea for you here would be to go the route of Silverlight. It will give you a more rich UI experience and will allow you to code in VB entirely.
I don't see using ASP.BET directly as a good option here. To make it look smooth, you would have to use javascript heavily. I thing you would be better off with Flash.
If you prefer to use pure HTML/Javascript/CSS you can create rich Web UI's by modifying the Document's Object Model (DOM). With little knowledge of Javascript and the usage of some library like: scriptaculus, prototype, sarissa, jquery, you can get rich interfaces. You should take a look at some of these libraries mainly scriptaculus because the set of animations it provides. Another javascript library made for game development is gameQuery.
With that many controls on an ASP.NET page your view state will be gigantic. If you plan on only serving up a couple of games at once then it shouldn't be a problem but you have to actually start thinking about bandwidth with that large of a viewstate. You would be better off with a DOM/jQuery type interface which displayed static images for the cards. All interaction can be handled client side and validated with a server side call.
This might be the perfect opportunity to learn javascript :). Remember each language you learn is another tool in your toolbox. The engineer with the most tools usually wins :).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is it worth it to code different functionality for users with javascript disabled?
I've just learned in this question that an ASP.NET webforms application will have issues to run properly in a browser with disabled Javascript (unless I don't use certain controls and features).
So this is a kind of a follow-up question. For my current web application which will only have a small number of users I can postulate to enable Javascript.
But how to deal with this question in general? As I can see (with my rather small knowledge about web development until now) Javascript is all around, especially the more a web site is "dynamic" or "RIA" like.
Is it worth at all to take care about the few users during web app development who disable Javascript in their browsers?
Are they really "few"? (I actually have no clue, I just don't know anyone who has Javascript disabled.)
I'm a bit inclined to tell them: "If you want a nice interactive page, don't disable Javascript." or "You cannot enter this website without Javascript. Go away!" Because I don't want to double code and development time for some mavericks (if they are mavericks). Does it indeed add a lot more time to get a website working with Javascript and without Javascript as well?
For what reason does someone disable Javascript at all in his/her browser? Well, I've heard: "Security!" How unsecure is Javascript actually? And does that mean in the end that millions of pages are unsecure and almost every website I am using is a risk for me? Are there other reasons except security?
Are there any branches or environments where it is usual or even mandatory to disable Javascript for security (or other) reasons? (For instance I have security services, offices in defense ministries or a bank in mind.)
Are there any trends in development to see to add more Javascript to web sites, thus making it more and more necessary to let Javascript enabled in the browser? Or is there rather a counter motion?
Thank you for some feedback in advance!
Whether or not to care about users who turn off javascript should be done on a case by case basis. If you believe that it is ok to turn away users that do not have it enabled then that is a decision that you can make and is made by many apps.
Keep in mind that it is not necessarily a conscious decision to have javascript disabled or at a limited capacity. Screen readers, for example have a very stripped version of javascript and a site that uses it throughout will often be inaccessible. Depending on the website, this may actually be illegal.
If a website is properly constructed with progressive enhancement from the beginning, then creating versions that work without javascript should not be too much additional work. Therein lies one of the major issues with webforms - it is difficult to gain control over markup and javascript tends to be very tightly coupled.
My personal view is the number of people who completely disable javascript to the extent that .net web sites stop functioning is very small - For some government sites I have been responsible for, I don't recall getting any complaints from "non-javascript" users.
My concern would be more about making sure your site was xhtml compliant, with valid markup (which earlier versions of Visual Studio did not generate), valid css, and intelligent use of javascript.
Having a disclaimer somewhere on your site - that is accessible to those few with javascript disabled telling people that javascript is required for the site to function correctly would be a good thing.
Depends on your audience. For one thing, if the site is completely nonfunctional without JavaScript, accessibility (e.g. to those who must use a screen reader) may be an issue, so if you expect any blind users, you might need to consider that.
In most situations, I'd say, you're probably fine just using <noscript> tags to drop in a quick disclaimer along the lines of "JavaScript is required to use this web site."
While I have no solid numbers -- and I presume I'm in the distinct minority -- I, and many of the more savvy users I know, disable JavaScript by default (a la NoScript). I enable it on websites on a case by case basis. Most novice users (I'm ignoring the 25% in the upper/middle of experience) don't even know what "JavaScript" means.
As a developer I see the cost/benefit of supporting JS-less users
as boiling down to one question:
Do your users need the site more, or do you need your users more?
One of my current projects makes heavy use of JavaScript and Flash and does not function at all without it. But as it's installed at the employer's site and the visitors are the employees using it for their job, that requirement is completely reasonable.
However, if I were working on a revenue-generating site where losing users meant losing money, I'd seriously think about crafting the site to work w/o JS -- albeit less quickly with more page reloads. (Perhaps by asking advice here.)
As a random thought -- you could probably devise a special method to determine how many of your current users do and don't have JS enabled.
There are probably thousands of applications out there like 'Google Web Accelerator' and all kinds of popup blockers. Then theres header blocking personal firewalls, full site blockers, and paranoid cookie monsters.
Fortunately Web Accelerator is now defunct (I suggest you read the above article - its actually quite funny what issues it caused) but there are so many other plugins and third party apps out there that its impossible to test them all with your app until its out in the wild.
What I'm looking for is advice on the most important things to remember when writing a web-app (whatever technology) with respect to ensuring the user's environment isnt going to break it. Kind of like a checklist.
Whats the craziest thing you've experienced?
PS. I may have linked to net-nanny above, but I'm not trying to make a porn site
The best advice I can give is to program defensively. For example, don't assume that all of your scripts may be loaded. I've seen cases where AdBlocker Plus will block 1/10 scripts that are included in a page just because it has the word "ad" in the name or path. While you can work around this by renaming the file, it's still good to check that a particular object exists before using it.
The weirdest thing I've seen wasn't so much a browser plugin but a firewall/proxy configuration at a user's workplace. They were using a squid proxy that was trying to remove ads by replacing any image HTTP request that it thought was an ad with a single pixel GIF image. Unfortunately it did this for non-GIF images too so when our iPhone application was expecting a PNG image and got a GIF, it would crash.
Internet Explorer 6. :)
No, but seriously. Firefox plugins like noscript and greasemonkey for one, though those are likely to be a very small minority.
Sometimes the user's environment means a screen reader (or even a braille interface like this). If your layout is in any way critical to the content being delivered as intended, you've got a problem right there.
Web pages break, fact of life; the closer you have been coding and designing up against standards, the less your fault it is.
Something I have checked in the past is loading some of the more popular toolbars that people tend to install (Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc) and seeing how that affects the users experience.
To a certain extent it is difficult to preempt which of the products you mentioned will be used by your users since there are so many. I would say your best bet is to test for the most frequent products that your user base may employ and roll with the punches for the rest. If you have the time to test other possible scenarios, by all means do.
Also, making it easy for your users to report possible issues also helps lessen the time it takes to get a fix in place should it be something you can work around.
When does it become unavoidable and when would you want to choose JavaScript over server side when you have a choice?
When you need to change something on your page without reloading it.
Designer perspective:
When you want to give more interactivity to your web page
When you want to load stuff without reloading (i.e.: ajax for example)
When you shouldn't use:
When You don't want to spend 1000 hours in pointless tries to disable the back arrow of your browser :)
Google maps would not have been possible without JavaScript. At least not in the form we know (and love) it today. So, depending on your ambition (and requirements) clearly: sometimes JavaScript is unavoidable, even though there exist technologies that take another approach that might have worked equally well (Java Applets, RIA technologies, etc).
If I had the choice I would probably chose JavaScript over a server-side implementation for a large number of applications, but then again, it is not a black or white picture. The server will remain important for web applications for a very long time to come.
Yes, you do. Now take out your textbook and turn to Chapter One. ;)
Honestly, though, to answer your question, I don't think it's ever "unavoidable," no; you can always code for the absence of JavaScript. (Indeed, usability best practices dictate you at least try to "gracefully degrade" the user experience for browsers that don't support it, or for users who choose not to.) In the beginning, of course, there was no JavaScript -- but there was still the Web. It just, well, kinda sucked.
There's no simple answer, but if you absolutely must have one, the most straight-ahead one I can think of is to use JavaScript to improve the user experience. Secondarily, use it to shift the workload from your server toward the browser (Hello, Ajax!) -- validation, state, etc. Those are two big reasons, broadly stated, IMO.
At a stretch, you could do everything via server-side programming. Some things will be painfully slow and difficult to pull off right, but it is possible. If you want to see something clever done with nothing more than CSS, try out the search feature on lxr.mozilla.org with scripting disabled.
Practically though, the best places to use javascript are where it'd otherwise disrupt the flow of what the user's doing - the AJAXy things on here are all pretty good examples, as is the realtime preview (everyone should have one of these!)
If it provides significant benefit, then it's completely fine to use it. But please, don't make it required unless the server-only equivalent is needlessly complicated.
I never want to choose JavaScript, but it becomes unavoidable when clients want a decent web app. JavaScript has the unique feature of low latency feedback in a browser - server side code doesn't.
Also, there are a (rather limited) number of times when it's actually easier to bust out some JQuery for formatting rather than dealing with ASP.NET's event model to manipulate client elements. But, I'd say those are relatively few.
If you are looking for a responsive UI and want to avoid JavaScript, consider some of the RIA technologies such as Flex, Silverlight or JavaFX. I've been developing with Flex since v1.5 and find it very capable and productive. Silverlight is getting significantly better with each release, too.
GWT is a nice system that compiles java code into javascript which becomes kind of like a "Machine language" for the browser--you never have to consider it.
I believe most google apps are written using GWT. It's pretty slick.
All your source code is pretty much straight Java using a library somewhat like Swing.
JavaScript is not a necessity but, coupled with the DOM API, it provides a very useful medium for gradually improving the user experience of your site. Obviously the extent to which this is true is dependent on how well you execute these enhancements, don't just use JavaScript for the sake of it; it's a design decision, and should not be taken lightly.
Sharing the load between client and server.
Try to keep it natural. Use it to enhance little things, do not built your whole application on JS.
A good way to measure the breadth of your skills is when "Do I have to use ..." starts disappearing from your conversation. Hopefully you get to the point where a language is just a language, and you develop a feel for what the right tool is for the job, and can use it as comfortably as any other language.
If it's any consolation, there's increasing evidence that there's enough conventional wisdom and available toolsets that developers are increasingly preferring javascript. I personally like it for its conciseness and easy exensibility - once you get to know it.
You don't have to.
But if you want to provide UI extras like autocomplete, drag and drop, richer form entry fields, etc.…, Javascript is your only answer.
Of course you can abstract that Javascript generation out to the server side but you'd still be tussling with Javascript, albeit via programmatic code generation.
When you create a Rich Internet Application which gets loaded into a browser and which communicate to a Web Server with an Open API (like SOAP, JSON etc)
"Javascript over server side " JavaScript is client side, not server side.
You would still need to run server side stuff to get the data from the server. Javascript just gives you more control on how the client receives the data from the server.
JavaScript is unavoidable when you want a certain dynamic feature on your website which is not supported by default.
Dynamic feature
- without JavaScript: you can use CSS to change background of an element when the mouse is over the element. You can do the same thing with using JavaScript.
- Only in JavaScript: When you click the element with your mouse, the element disappears. Don't think it is possible in CSS(maybe you be able to use :active in CSS on some elements. Never tested it myself).