On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Mike.lifeguard <mikelifegu...@fastmail.fm> wrote: [snip] > into the appropriate derivative files. This is certainly a lot > easier than asking the user to do it (most have no sweet clue, > and even experienced users are in over their head),
You're missing a major component of this. The whole thing mr. dale is discussing is the use of the firefogg firefox extension. This does client side transcoding, but as far as the user can tell it's all done by the server.... except no long transmission time for his 14gbyte DV movie. (although, perhaps a long transcoding time. :) ) There are some other potential benefits to client side transcoding… such as a being able to use the user's local codecs for decode. The desired end result being "if the user can play it; he can upload it". (otherwise you require the server to support decoding every format ever invented, which may not be realistic). [snip] > and ensures > that the derived files have a minimal level of quality (ie no > transoding mistakes, which is easy to do if you don't know what > you're doing), saves the user time and energy, and also automates > a repetitive task. If we're asking users to upload several sizes Firefogg can handle all this, so long as you make an assumption that the user isn't totally CPU starved. I'm not trying to trumpet the extension based solution here— just attempting to point out that it was created to address many of these issues, and it's what is being mentioned. [snip] > Incidentally, archive.org required me to transfer the file via > FTP, which would also be /very/ nice to allow on WMF servers. In your first breath you were speaking of users with no clue being in over their head, and now you bring up upload via FTP. Think about it. ;) _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
