Batch Icon Uploading or Selecting

[stormy]

Title:
Batch Icon Uploading or Selecting

Area:
icons

Summary:
Support the ability to select multiple files in browse, list multiple files separated by a comma, or upload via .zip.

Description:
Currently, we can individually select icons in Browse and choose to upload all of them at once. This is still a tedious process that could be made much quicker by allowing Browse to select and upload multiple icons (either dragging over multiple icons, or CTRL/SHIFT selecting) or allowing users to select a zip of icons. When you have a Premium Paid Account and 250 icons, this could save a world of time!

If multiple icons were selected at once:
- It could either a) automatically populate the appropriate number of fields with them or b) upload all of them without individual information fields and the user could just go back and fill them in.

If a zip is selected:
- It would only load as many icons as you have, starting from the top in file name and filling each icon slot then rejecting the remainder.

- It would automatically skip icons that were not compatible in file type or size.

Poll #2589 Batch Icon Uploading or Selecting

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 66

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
47 (71.2%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
5 (7.6%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
13 (19.7%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.5%)

Comments

[kyrielle]

I'm not sure the zip processing is needed, but ignoring that and as far as the multiple files, a two-phase upload like the Flickr uploader might be ideal - it brings in all your photos/videos that you selected, then takes you to a second page where it shows you each of them (thumbnails, in that case) plus spots to add all the data fields related to them.

[sally_maria]

Yes, I think this would be the most efficient way of doing it.

[stormy]

I haven't used my Flickr much, but that sounds perfect.

[auroraprimavera]

I think this would be the most ideal way of doing it.

[goodbyebird]

+1

[allen]

Just so you know, you can't do multi-select upload fields in HTML. Sites like Flickr and such that allow you to use a single field to upload multiple files do it by embedding Flash in the page, which is problematic in other ways.

The zip file idea would probably work ok. It would still be kind of clunky, but probably less clunky than the current interface.

[auroraprimavera]

Do all sites that have multiple file uploads use flash? I wasn't aware of that.

[allen]

Well, you can use Java applets, too. Or maybe ActiveX, or some other plug-in. But straight HTML and JavaScript, no, or at least, not that I can find. (I'm thinking specifically here of being able to select multiple files at once, as opposed to, say, pressing a button to attach one file, then pressing the same button again to attach a second file, etc.)

[auroraprimavera]

I see, that does make sense. And wouldn't Ajax work for multiple files as well? It's a bit lighter and pretty nice to work with. I can't remember though, as it's been years since I've worked with it.

[msilverstar]

isn't there something about command-clicking / control-clicking in implementations of HTML?

[auroraprimavera]

I don't think having to upload a zip would be necessary, but otherwise, I'm all for this.

[ratcreature]

As long as the old way would also still work just like before. What I mean is that on some photo sites, like photobucket, the upload just stopped working completely for me when they upgraded it to made it "easier" (for bulk uploading or some such) and had installed some gadgetry that supposedly made it all more convenient. It didn't degrade well (or at all really) for users for whom the new thing didn't work, and I even had Flash and JavaScript and all that installed, just not the most recent versions. So I'd rather have it less convenient than broken for older browsers. (I just can't update my browser easily on my ancient half-broken laptop, so it's no use telling me I ought to update to make all better and more secure, and can't expect sites to work with computers from 2004.)

[susanreads]

I second the point about degrading smoothly for people who don't have the useful dingbats installed/enabled (person with pre-used hardware and zero budget here). Given Dwth's focus on accessibility, I'm sure they'll be more careful about that than the other sites you mention.