Image upload ?

[w.brants]

Using a HTML form I can upload an image with an input (type=file) field.

Is there any way to do the same in flash using KM ?

Wilbert

[necromanthus]

Simple enough.
In fact has nothing to do with flash. It's about JavaScript (the SWF holder).
The flash side is more like a joke: a dynamic text field and two buttons (with some very simple JS commands).
There're many examples over the net.
Try this one for example: http://www.impulsedigital.com/idio/idio-v1/

[w.brants]

http://www.impulsedigital.com/idio/idio-v1/

I prefer using FireFox but this example only works when I use IE. When I search the net there seem to be more problems achieving something like this in a FireFox compatible way.
Do you know of any code that functions in both browsers ?

[necromanthus]

Originally posted by w.brants
I prefer using FireFox but this example only works when I use IE. When I search the net there seem to be more problems achieving something like this in a FireFox compatible way.
Do you know of any code that functions in both browsers ?

Deactivate any available popup blocker,be sure that JavaScript is allowed and try again.
FireFox is growing,but according to the latest statisctics takes less than 7%.
IE6 is over 88% !
For future,use IE6 for your developments.
cheers

[evolbeagle]

Originally posted by necromanthus
FireFox is growing,but according to the latest statisctics takes less than 7%.
IE6 is over 88% !
For future,use IE6 for your developments.

Not according to these guys. I would modify necro's advice to say that you should definitely ensure your designs work in IE6, but you should try to stick to web standards as much as possible in doing so, otherwise you'll lose a growing number of users.

As to your original question: I've never tried to implement an image upload function on any of my sites. Maybe you should try the FireFox forums (since, as necro said, it really isn't a flash issue)?

[blanius]

We've had this discussion before, I hate sites that use IE only code.... Best practice I believe is to stick to WC3 compliant code.

The uploading issue isn't about HTML or javascript really the core thing is the server code. I haven't tried this but you should be able to use flash to send a javascript command that does a submit of a hidden form with hidden fields and these fields will have their value set as well via a javascript call from flash.

Then you use basic server code to get the form data and do the upload.
(PHP or ASP)

[necromanthus]

Originally posted by evolbeagle
Not according to these guys.

Very hard (almost impossible) to belive those results !
As we all know: behind many polls and statistics there're obscure interests.
But I don't wanna argue on this subject (in fact, I'm tired of it).
I was talking about my site:
- personal / gamers site
- the past 12 months
- over 1.4 million unique visitors (different IPs)
IE6: 88.2% (and belive me: I'm not a fan of MicroSoft Galactic Corporation ...)

Originally posted by blanius
Then you use basic server code to get the form data and do the upload.
(PHP or ASP)

good point !

[evolbeagle]

Originally posted by necromanthus

I was talking about my site

Oh. That wasn't clear at all. You'll help yourself avoid arguments if you'll state that kind of stuff up front.

[gusmus]

I can back Necro up on those numbers from my own servers. In the last 6 months the statistics run out at:

Operating Systems

OS XP 82%
OS W98 SE 5%
OS Linux 11%
Others 2%

Browser Type

IE Ver 6+ 76%
IE Ver 5+ 3%
Firefox 14%
Others 7%

Adding up the numbers it would seem that only between 3% to 4.5% of M$ Operating System users are using Firefox as an alternative browser.(approx 1.5% "Opera/AOL" Users. The other 0.5% marked as "Unknown"). Oddly enough, the highest percentage of alternative browser usage (Firefox Etc) came from visitors using Win98 SE as their operating system

So although it pays to be compliant with as many systems as possible it also shows that (for now at least) the onus has to be compliancy in IE,s favour because that's what our visitors are using.

[necromanthus]

Originally posted by gusmus
So although it pays to be compliant with as many systems as possible it also shows that (for now at least) the onus has to be compliancy in IE,s favour because that's what our visitors are using.

I subscribe to that.
Also,another important detail for evolbeagle.
Talking about my latest statistics:
over 1.4 million unique visitors (different IPs) from 107 countries
Why the number of countries is so important ?
FireFox is growing (and I like that),but is very popular in US only !
at least for now ...

[evolbeagle]

First, my apologies to w.brants for inadvertantly hijacking the thread.

Second, nothing I say here is meant to be mean-spirited in any way. If we were having this discussion face to face, that fact would be obvious, but it's not always obvious on the net. So this is just discussion on my part, not life or death arguing.

Gusmus: I'm not clear about your numbers. At first blush, it looks like your FireFox usage (14%) is right in the middle of Necro's numbers and the W3C numbers I linked to. If you have a minute, could you give more detail to explain the "adding up the numbers" part? For example, how did you come up with the 3-4.5% figure? Not saying that your numbers are wrong; it's just not clear how you arrived at them.

Necro and gusmus:

I'm basically against using anything that works only in IE (unless, of course, you're doing some sort of browser sniff and switch routine). My own approach is to try to stick to web standards, then add in unobtrusive hacks if necessary to make sure the site works in IE. I completely agree that a site needs to work in IE; I just think it's a bad idea to design to IE and say to heck with the rest. (Not that you guys are doing that - I'm just stating my approach here.)

As to site stats, you typically can't use stats for one particular site to generalize about all web users. This is true for at least two reasons:

First is the obvious problem of randomization. Necro's site, for example, won't be visited by a random sample of web users, but rather by people who are interested in the particular things his site showcases. But if we're trying to draw conclusions about the general web population, we need a more random sample. Very few individual sites will provide such a sample.

The second problem here is one of site bias. If a site is designed to IE proprietary standards so that it fails to function properly in other browsers, it's no surprise that a majority of the site's users will turn out to be IE users. If, say, a FireFox user lands on such a site, he or she is faced with two choices: switch to IE or go away. In either case, the FireFox user won't show up in that site's stats as a FireFox user for long. In other words, designing to IE standards effectively filters out other browsers, so the site stats are, again, not reflective of the general web population.

FireFox may never be a real threat to IE, but it is gaining among personal users (as opposed to business users, which will stay with IE for the foreseeable future). [And as an aside, I think necro's wrong about FF popularity in other countries. In particluar, FF is popular in Europe to roughly the same degree that it is popular in the US.] At any rate, every web designer has to pick his or her threshold. For me, even a 7% userbase is worth worrying about from a design standpoint. Of course, like necro, I'm no fan of M$. In fact, if it weren't for KoolMoves, I probably would ditch M$ altogether.

And now that I've written a book, I'll stop and get back to work.

[gusmus]

For example, how did you come up with the 3-4.5% figure? Not saying that your numbers are wrong; it's just not clear how you arrived at them.

The Numbers were gleaned from the amount of M$ OS users who were not using IE. The figures relate to the difference in usage between the OS and the built in browser where there is a discrepancy. But, the Linux numbers will always be consistent with "Firefox/Opera" usage as they are not likely or able to use IE so therefore there is a mean difference in M$ usage of approx 5%. A maximum mean figure (according to my logs and some averaging out) would put the percentage of M5 OS users using Firefox as an alternative browser at about 4.5% "Absolute maximum" I'd prefer to include the other obscure browsers listed as "Unknown" in that figure so it would seem to run at about 4%. I can only go by what my logs say and try to make a rough picture of them, I'm actually more interested on how long they stay on certain sites than what browser they are using.

The second point is that these (as do Necros) figures are logged as "Unique" visitors so the figures have to stand up as first time visitors which you must agree can in no way be affected by bad site management or incompatible browsers, although you can take into account the number of repeat visitors using a dynamic IP instead of static. As stated before, Necro has had an annual "Unique" visitor figure of 1.4 million whereas my own humble total is only approx 380000 over the last six month period which averages out at 750000 to 800000 over the year. That's still a lot of people and 80% of them are using IE. On top of that, as you know, Necro has a general interest/Gaming/music/You name it site. Mine is purely hosted sites from my own web design clients. I do have a separate section of the server farmed out to other clients but their web stats are a separate issue (with different logs) which I don't mix with my own business.
The one thing I must point out is that in general, Firefox will accept whatever you throw at it and anything compatible with IE will generally work fine on Firefox. The only drawback is the pop-up blocker which can be switched off but then that's a problem of the user and not the page designer. Something that has been commented on and experienced by myself is that at times Firefox is depressingly slow to load on certain sites whereas IE will load it instantly but I suppose that the reverse is true of IE under certain conditions.

Your comments about European Firefox usage are interesting. Here in Spain it's not really moving that well as an alternative browser but the various flavours of Linux are starting to make a mark especially in the local government and small business communities but in most cases you'll find that they have a network of Linux boxes linked to a central M$ box (usually M$ Server 2003)which also controls the global internet connection. I think this has more to do with the Open Office Suite and money saved as opposed to user preference because I suspect that 90% of "Linux" office workers go home to sit in front of an M$ box by preference.

PS. I have managed to get KM working on my Mandrakelinux box using "Wine", albeit with some unexpected hiccups and some very strange browser previews but I think a while spent tweaking the "Wine" loader may overcome most the problems. It's all a matter of time of which there is too little.