none
Changing video files from a drop down box RRS feed

  • Question

  • I was wondering if you can change the file that is being played on the WMP Object with a drop down box with a list of videos in it.

     

    Monday, December 19, 2011 10:50 PM

Answers

  • You can use one of the multivideo player templates (the ones with Gallery in the name) in the Insert -> Media ->SilverLight Video option.  People who don't have Silverlight will be prompted to install it, if you don't mind that happening.  This lets you use your wmv videos as input.

    See http://social.expression.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/web/thread/df360ce7-c189-4ec7-b961-9dd75d3cd973  for instructions on how to add the additional videos.

    • Marked as answer by EL Nickell Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:31 PM
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:58 AM
  • Depends upon the player you use. That's a function of the player. Some are only designed to play a single file passed in by param in the object declaration. Others are also capable of playing a playlist, and of selecting from the playlist using the player's interface.

    I don't normally use WMV files (Flash flv/swf has far more universal browser support—somewhere in the 90s percentile—than any other format), but as an experiment, I just created a test page (EW4) and inserted EW's default wmv object declaration, and the one that plays in IE9 (only after IE asks permission to run the WMP plugin, which is apparently available by default to IE) is not capable of multiplay operation (or maybe Help doesn't explain how to modify the object declaration for multiplay, but I don't think so, given my Google results).

    It should be noted that whether a suitable player is available (using EW's default Insert method) is entirely dependent upon the visitor's configuration. For example, my Firefox installation on this new laptop displays "Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page" when the page is loaded. I don't know whether the Firefox version of the player is multiplay or not (I didn't click the "Install Missing Plugins..." button), but it may have been provided by MS, and be similar to the IE plugin in functionality.

    You can install a player into your Web space (server) and call that player from your page, but the code for that will be proprietary to the player in question, and probably provided by the 3rd party app that creates the player. For example, I use CoffeeCup's Web Video Player, which converts wmv, among other formats, into swf and plays them using swfobject.js, and their player is multiplay-capable. I don't have an example of a page configured to show a playlist, but this site shows the player configured for next/previous play (the testimonial videos), and the playlist button, which would have evoked the playlist if I had added multiple videos to the actual player instances, instead of calling pages with individual players into an iframe (using prettyPhoto). View Source to see the HTML.

    Note that the method I used there effectively provides a playlist using this method, since each testimonial is individually selectable from the list on the calling page. The advantage there is that you can use any HTML container(s) and CSS you want to create the "playlist" (i.e. matching your page layout and styling, as in this case of being integrated with the "premium savings table") instead of having to "take what you get" built into your chosen player. Your choice...

    As far as free playlist-capable WMV players, well... googling "wmv player with playlist support" found this one. Note that I have not tested this, so cannot attest its capability, but you can try it out and let us know, OK?  ;-)

    <edit>
    Hmmm... just looked again and noticed that (a) that one is ad-supported in the free version, and (b) it doesn't say a word about producing Web-compatible players (i.e. it appears to be a desktop player). Bummer. Tell the truth, those Google results definitely do not look encouraging, especially given that the search criteria don't even include the word "free." You may have to be more format-agnostic, and/or be prepared to pay, to achieve your objective.

    OTOH, after thinking about it a bit, it occurs to me that the method I used above, calling individual pages, each with a single player instance, into an iframe using prettyPhoto, will even work with EW's default Insert|Media, since the player instances themselves need not support multiplay. Just a thought...
    </edit>

    cheers,
    scott
    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.



    • Marked as answer by EL Nickell Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:31 PM
    • Edited by paladyn Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:38 AM
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:32 AM

All replies

  • Depends upon the player you use. That's a function of the player. Some are only designed to play a single file passed in by param in the object declaration. Others are also capable of playing a playlist, and of selecting from the playlist using the player's interface.

    I don't normally use WMV files (Flash flv/swf has far more universal browser support—somewhere in the 90s percentile—than any other format), but as an experiment, I just created a test page (EW4) and inserted EW's default wmv object declaration, and the one that plays in IE9 (only after IE asks permission to run the WMP plugin, which is apparently available by default to IE) is not capable of multiplay operation (or maybe Help doesn't explain how to modify the object declaration for multiplay, but I don't think so, given my Google results).

    It should be noted that whether a suitable player is available (using EW's default Insert method) is entirely dependent upon the visitor's configuration. For example, my Firefox installation on this new laptop displays "Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page" when the page is loaded. I don't know whether the Firefox version of the player is multiplay or not (I didn't click the "Install Missing Plugins..." button), but it may have been provided by MS, and be similar to the IE plugin in functionality.

    You can install a player into your Web space (server) and call that player from your page, but the code for that will be proprietary to the player in question, and probably provided by the 3rd party app that creates the player. For example, I use CoffeeCup's Web Video Player, which converts wmv, among other formats, into swf and plays them using swfobject.js, and their player is multiplay-capable. I don't have an example of a page configured to show a playlist, but this site shows the player configured for next/previous play (the testimonial videos), and the playlist button, which would have evoked the playlist if I had added multiple videos to the actual player instances, instead of calling pages with individual players into an iframe (using prettyPhoto). View Source to see the HTML.

    Note that the method I used there effectively provides a playlist using this method, since each testimonial is individually selectable from the list on the calling page. The advantage there is that you can use any HTML container(s) and CSS you want to create the "playlist" (i.e. matching your page layout and styling, as in this case of being integrated with the "premium savings table") instead of having to "take what you get" built into your chosen player. Your choice...

    As far as free playlist-capable WMV players, well... googling "wmv player with playlist support" found this one. Note that I have not tested this, so cannot attest its capability, but you can try it out and let us know, OK?  ;-)

    <edit>
    Hmmm... just looked again and noticed that (a) that one is ad-supported in the free version, and (b) it doesn't say a word about producing Web-compatible players (i.e. it appears to be a desktop player). Bummer. Tell the truth, those Google results definitely do not look encouraging, especially given that the search criteria don't even include the word "free." You may have to be more format-agnostic, and/or be prepared to pay, to achieve your objective.

    OTOH, after thinking about it a bit, it occurs to me that the method I used above, calling individual pages, each with a single player instance, into an iframe using prettyPhoto, will even work with EW's default Insert|Media, since the player instances themselves need not support multiplay. Just a thought...
    </edit>

    cheers,
    scott
    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.



    • Marked as answer by EL Nickell Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:31 PM
    • Edited by paladyn Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:38 AM
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:32 AM
  • You can use one of the multivideo player templates (the ones with Gallery in the name) in the Insert -> Media ->SilverLight Video option.  People who don't have Silverlight will be prompted to install it, if you don't mind that happening.  This lets you use your wmv videos as input.

    See http://social.expression.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/web/thread/df360ce7-c189-4ec7-b961-9dd75d3cd973  for instructions on how to add the additional videos.

    • Marked as answer by EL Nickell Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:31 PM
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:58 AM
  • Thank you to the both of you. This gives me a direction to go...
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:31 PM
  • Ah, OK. I was kinda hoping that someone who actually uses EW's Insert|Media feature would chime in. I don't, preferring the more flexible, and designer-stylable, options offered by 3rd party products, or by "rolling your own," as in the fabricated playlist in the example above.

    Also, I prefer the universality afforded by Flash (swf, flv) formats, for which more PCs are equipped than any other single platform, even discounting Adobe's own estimates of 98%+, and going with presumably less-biased estimates of around 80%. That's still by far the most pervasive of all formats in consideration (Quicktime/MP4, WMV, Silverlight, H.264, MPEG4, etc.).

    I would rather not have to depend upon someone being willing to download and install a plugin, BHO, etc. to be able to view an animation or video, particularly if it is integral to the page design and the page appearance would suffer until the plugin is installed, or if it is not installed (I tend not to bother unless I really want the content in question).

    I'll grant that H.264 probably has a higher potential quality, although at the level at which that quality is evident, the bandwidth costs also increase, so that the discerned video quality of the competing formats, at equivalent bandwidth cost, is not significantly different. In any event, I have had multiple, and ongoing, problems trying to play Silverlight content, with the browser insisting that I need to install Silverlight, even though I have Ex. Blend 4, the latest Silverlight 4 SDK, and the latest Silverlight, as updated by Windows Update, already installed! Moreover, visiting another site with Silverlight content immediately afterward results in that content playing without issue(?!). Sorry, but I am not going to depend on such a platform for any content that I actually want to be reliably viewable on my or my client's sites. Your mileage, of course, may vary...  ;-)

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:36 PM
  • Scott,

    For a multi video player you would need to use the method Kathy pointed to since all the EW code was designed to do was use a variant of object.

    Silverlight works on every platform that Flash works on and I moved my tutorials over to it fro Flash because its streaming is far more efficient. That reduced my bandwidth by almost 60% on the tutorials.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Tuesday, December 20, 2011 5:46 PM
  • Scott,
    For a multi video player you would need to use the method Kathy pointed to since all the EW code was designed to do was use a variant of object.

    Umm... no, you would need to use that method only if you were determined to use the drop-in Insert|Media function in EW, for which the Silverlight player (not surprisingly ;-) appears to be the only option for multiplay. If you wish, there are also 3rd party players (which, for the wmv format, appear to be somewhat limited...) that can provide multiplay capability.

    And for those who want maximum control over the styling of the playlist (and who have the necessary HTML and CSS chops, of course... ;-), there's always the roll your own approach, of which only one method of the multitude of possible approaches is illustrated by the example shown above.

    As noted, while a little more work, this offers both the ability to use EW's object insertion function and the freedom to structure and style your playlist using literally any HTML element, styled however you wish, permitting easy integration with your overall layout.

    It should be noted that the design of the playlist used at the Abraham Insurance site was dictated entirely by the client's wishes. He wanted the "legend," or selectors, for the video to include the person's name, the amount saved, and the percent of their previous premium that was saved. He had also seen Lightbox-type displays before, and wanted his testimonials displayed similarly.

    The former dictated the choice of a table layout for the playlist, which I had the freedom to implement, and which might have been difficult using a player's playlist format (for example, I've never used it—could the Silverlight player have produced such a playlist?). The latter dictated the choice of prettyPhoto to actually display the videos. [NOTE: I mistakenly referred to LightWindow above, which I have used in other projects, but I had since found prettyPhoto, and decided that its implementation was cleaner and easier than LightWindow's. I will edit the post above to correct it when I finish here.]

    The choice to use the iframe option, of the many choices offered by prettyPhoto, was dictated by a couple of factors. First was the extreme simplicity afforded. All that is required is a single reference in the page-local section of the <head> of the home page (since it is only used there):

    <!-- #BeginEditable "localStyles" -->
    <!-- references for PrettyPhoto -->
    <script src="scripts/jquery.prettyPhoto.js" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script>
    <link rel="stylesheet" href="css/prettyPhoto.css" type="text/css" media="screen" charset="utf-8" />
    <!--Initialize PrettyPhoto-->
    <script type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8">
     $(document).ready(function(){
      $("a[rel^='prettyPhoto']").prettyPhoto();
     });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">

    That's it. The accessor for the single-line implementation (I love jQuery ;-) specifies the element to be affected (an <a> with rel of prettyPhoto) and the method. Thenceforth, anywhere that you want the effect to be applied you need simply declare an element meeting those criteria, like so...

    <a href="testimonials/m-cortazzo-project/m-cortazzo.html?iframe=true&width=365&height=305" rel="prettyPhoto[iframes]">Testimonial Video</a>

    Note that that meets the required jQuery accessor criteria, and that the argument to prettyPhoto specifies that it operate on an iframe. Also, if you look at the page source, you will note that the contents of every cell in that column are identical, including the IE CCs, except for the path in each anchor tag. That's it. That enabled me to create the first cell's markup manually, then simply copy it down into each cell in the column (selected in code view by clicking the cell in design view, one of the few valid uses for design view <g, d, & r>).

    Then, since I'm not nothing if not lazy, for each subsequent cell in the column, I simply previewed each of the prepared HTML pages containing each video, then grabbed the path from the address line, and copied it over the original from the first copied cell. Voila! After eleven copy operations, the implementation is fully complete. Minimal effort, and since everything except the initial cell had been filled in by copy/paste (and that one was created using EW's Insert|Hyperlink), minimal opportunity for typo-induced pathing errors. Fortunately, it is permitted to be lazy, while also being efficient and accurate.  ;-)

    Now, why iframes calling HTML pages rather than another option? Again, client wishes and, well... my inherent laziness. While CoffeeCup's Web Video Player will indeed produce players with playlists (the format of which may be seen from the example above, although the "playlist" is only one selection long ;-), that would not have met the client's requirements. Since the page produced by CoffeeCup's Web Video Player to contain the markup for the player (basically a swfobject.js call) is identical in every regard except the URL of the video, it became another candidate for the copy/paste method.

    Now, here's one of the pages being called into the iframe for each anchor

    http://abrahaminsurancellc.com/testimonials/m-cortazzo-project/m-cortazzo.html

    If you go there and View Source, you will see that it is a very simple page indeed, and it is representative of what the CC software generates. If you view the source of multiple such pages, you will see that the only thing that changes in each genned page is the path and that "GUID-like" number representing the target element of the swfobject.js "so.write" method. Since that is an internal (i.e. page-local) value, it may be ignored, and multiple copies of the first page genned may be created, then the filename of the video copy/pasted into this line (they're all in the same folder):

    var so = new SWFObject("m-cortazzo.swf","", "350", "289", "7,0,0,0", "#000000");

    Now save the file under the appropriate project name. Lather, rinse, repeat ten more times... Voila! You are done. Twelve almost identical pages, differing only in the video file being displayed, and all ready to be referenced in the copy/pasted cell markup of the main page. Again, all changes effected by copy/pasting (the pages from the single original, then the filename from the Folder List into the pages' markup), ensuring accuracy and minimizing the time required to create the pages. In reality, if you discount the time spent in CoffeeCup's Web Video Player and in Adobe Media Encoder (which is where the original Flip Camera MOV videos were encoded into SWF, and sized identically), it has taken almost as long to write this account as to build the pages and incorporate them into the home page markup. Seriously.

    Note that, while I jokingly referred above to this kind of thing being doable by those with "the necessary HTML and CSS chops," in reality the implementation in the Home page markup was very simple—a simple script and CSS file link in the head, along with a seven-line implementing function (not counting my own comment lines), exactly as specified in the prettyPhoto page demos. In the HTML, again, a simple standard table structure (appropriate in this case since the information is row/column oriented), with a column of cells that contain nothing but a simple anchor tag with a specific rel, again as specified by the prettyPhoto page demos. In fact, the code accounting for IE's idiosyncrasies is more complex than the prettyPhoto stuff.

    Likewise, the pages being called are simplicity itself (not even a doctype!), and are exactly as created by the video player generating program, CoffeeCup's Web Video Player. The creation of both those pages and the implementing markup in the host page, as well as the CSS used to style it, is simple, standard markup and CSS, not Webdev rocket science, and is well within the capacity of anyone who has worked with the w3schools tutorials linked in the Forum FAQs and Guidelines. In short, the "necessary HTML and CSS chops" are easily obtained with a reasonably short investment of time in learning the technologies, and are well within the grasp of any developer prepared to invest that time. Given the clear payback in design freedom, flexibility, and power, and the concomitant acquisition of the knowledge and experience to meet any client requirement (or even one's own needs ;-), and I would say it's well worth the time. But, then, that's just me... ;-)

    Silverlight works on every platform that Flash works on and I moved my tutorials over to it fro Flash because its streaming is far more efficient. That reduced my bandwidth by almost 60% on the tutorials.

    Yes, well, that's fine. I'm aware that Silverlight is available on all the major platforms (if by that you mean Mac, Windows, etc.), but if you read my post you will see that that was not my problem with it. I have given my reasons there, and I see no reason to repeat them. Others may dispute them, and that's fine. As clearly stated there, YMMV... 

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:23 AM
  • Scott,

    Since the OP asked for an EW solution pointing to the only one integrated into the suite is what I was doing.

    An advantage to using the Silverlight method and putting the encoded video in using the h264 (?) format is that you can put a simple video tag link for mobile visitors instead of having to provide a separate video file for those devices that don't support Flash. Just a thought.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:13 PM
  • Scott,

    Since the OP asked for an EW solution pointing to the only one integrated into the suite is what I was doing.

    Integrated? Define "integrated." If you're talking about the process described by Kathy in her post referenced above, then... really? I seriously doubt whether BeDazzled Bill (the OP in that thread) would agree, given the length of that thread while he laboriously went back and forth, struggling to understand the ordinary, but unfamiliar to him, Webdev terminology and instructions given. Integrated?

    Now, I will grant that you or I, or Kathy, or any of the more experienced developers here, could follow those instructions easily and expeditiously, since we share certain characteristics—knowledge and experience with HTML, CSS, and Expression Web. That clearly does not describe BeDazzled Bill, nor, I suspect, the OP in this thread, who seems, as you noted, to be looking for something "integrated into the suite." Say, something with a workflow like this:

    1. Click Insert|Media|Silverlight Video...
    2. Choose the files to be added to the playlist
    3. Select one of the (only??) two gallery templates on offer
    4. Click "Encode" and... wait a while
    5. Preview generated player in browser

    Notice anything missing there? Like, say, copying and pasting playlist items from extra copies of the player markup? Or deleting those extra copies of the player markup? Or creating all of those extra copies to begin with? Or knowing enough about HTML to be able to recognize where in all that mass of markup the proper start/end points are to be copied and or deleted? (and it ain't easy, especially to those who don't know how to use the "Select Tag" icon, or even that the Code View toolbar exists; just sayin'...)

    Now, you know as well as anyone that I do not advocate putting 3rd party functionality like that (video players, photo galleries, lightboxes, etc.) into EW, nor am I advocating that in this case. But, if we're going to discuss something that is supposed to be "integrated into the suite," then it should in fact refer to integrated functionality in the interface, and not to a rather laborious "roll your own" process requiring knowledge of HTML and the ability to analyze markup in order to rearrange it and cull unnecessary code, which is exactly what the process described in Kathy's post is.

    As a matter of fact, having now done both, I feel confident in saying that the copy/paste process I used in creating the Abraham page, described in detail in my previous post, of copying a single href URL from an address line into eleven identical cells of a standard HTML table column, actually takes less time than repeatedly invoking the Insert|Media dialog as described in the recommended process, then locating the correct points and cutting and pasting, then deleting. I probably also spent less total time in the encoder, since unlike this process, I was able to batch all my videos, set the desired target characteristics once, and convert them at one time. Given that my process is both faster and easier for a new developer to understand (seriously, read it), I would say that it is more deserving of the description "integrated" than the alternative, n'est-ce pas?  ;-)

    An advantage to using the Silverlight method and putting the encoded video in using the h264 (?) format is that you can put a simple video tag link for mobile visitors instead of having to provide a separate video file for those devices that don't support Flash. Just a thought.

    Ah, yes. But then, that would be true of my method, as well, and it doesn't even require the use of a 3rd party app like CoffeeCup's Web Video Player. Although the simple pages created by that app were what was called into the iframe for my application, and they did use Flash (swf), there is no reason whatsoever that those pages could not be simple default EW New Pages, each with a single video inserted using EW's Insert|Media function.

    In fact, the OP's need could be directly addressed using my process, since it doesn't require the apparently unavailable WMV player multiplay functionality at all, and is completely agnostic about which kind of media object is embedded on each page. Each page would have a single instance of "Insert|Media|Windows Media Player..." (or whatever) in it, requiring no re-encoding of the original media whatsoever, completing eliminating the encoding phase of the process and reducing it to simply doing the HTML copy/paste operations.

    In addition, it eliminates the need to settle for the locked in, and rather pedestrian, thumbnail playlist dictated by the use of the Silverlight templates. He could use a multi-column table like my example, or a two-column table with an image and a description of the video, or an unordered list, or an ordered list if he wanted to use javascript (or maybe even no-script-necessary named anchors) to provide a "pick a number" interface, or pretty much any structural HTML he felt met his needs. And whatever he chooses, he is free to style it however he wishes, using standard CSS to achieve whatever look and feel he desires. That is design freedom, power, and flexibility, which is what EW, and the knowledge of HTML and CSS required to use it effectively, is supposed to give us.

    Heh, heh... Q.E.D.   ;-)

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    • Edited by paladyn Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:57 AM
    Thursday, December 22, 2011 3:42 AM
  • When I last inserted a multi video player it was avery simple process.

    Insert > Media Silverlikght Video

    Opens a dialog box to select the video you want to use. Let it do its thing then simply copy the playlist code created and point the source to the other videos you want in the player.

    Or you can open Expression Encoder directly and select multiple videos then the gallery template you want with the "output" location in your EW web. That's what I did for http://wizerways.net/wizerways/video-test/ With only minor editing (didn't like the folder name created by the output and moved the location/renamed the Default.html to index.htm) it was all done using the interfaces of the two program. Including writing the commentary and some minimal CSS it took less than 10 minutes. If I decide to go back and add some images I might put it on my site as a tutorial.

    Granted I did find using the other Expression tool easier but its part of the suite so why not?


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:37 PM
  • When I last inserted a multi video player it was avery simple process.

    Insert > Media Silverlikght Video

    Opens a dialog box to select the video you want to use. Let it do its thing then simply copy the playlist code created and point the source to the other videos you want in the player.

    Oh, true, no doubt. You, or I, or Kathy, Bill, or Ian, or any competent Web developer, would find it a very simple process. If, that is, it were actually a "very simple process" as your description indicates. It is not; you have simplified the process far more than it deserves, since "copy the playlist code created and point the source to the other videos you want" presumes that those videos have already been encoded, and already exist in the format desired at the target source location.

    However, in the current discussion, the source videos exist only as wmv files, and the target format must be Silverlight/H.264 if the only multiplay option offered by the suite is to employed. Therefore, the encoding process must, perforce, be included as a part of that "simple process" if it is to reflect the reality. If one is to work in EW, as the OP's post seems to indicate was the objective, then something like Kathy's process must be used both to encode the videos and to produce the markup. And, as that thread amply illustrated, those with a novice level of competency certainly do not find that to be a "very simple process," nicht wahr? [NOTE: After visiting your test page link below I saw that you recognized this issue there. The point still remains—the videos have to be first encoded, and that was not mentioned as part of the very simple process above.]

    But, just for the sake of argument, let's say the encoding has been done. Then, according to your example at the link below, you "could have skipped using Encoder completely if my videos had already been encoded by simply copying the play list items and editing each pasted item to the correct video location and information:"

    After which you show an example <PlaylistItem> for which seven of fourteen parameters must be edited! So, for the process described, the encoding time still must be accounted for somewhere, as well as the copying and pasting, and the parameter editing. A very simple process? To a novice? Really? And the question still arises—how does a person who would ask the question in the original post of this thread know that these things are to be done?

    Or you can open Expression Encoder directly and select multiple videos then the gallery template you want with the "output" location in your EW web. That's what I did for http://wizerways.net/wizerways/video-test/ With only minor editing (didn't like the folder name created by the output and moved the location/renamed the Default.html to index.htm) it was all done using the interfaces of the two program. Including writing the commentary and some minimal CSS it took less than 10 minutes. If I decide to go back and add some images I might put it on my site as a tutorial.

    Granted I did find using the other Expression tool easier but its part of the suite so why not?

    Why not, indeed? In fact, although I had not before used the Silverlight format, now that I have explored the processes available, I might use Encoder for multiplay. I might, that is, if I were prepared to accept the objections I currently have with Silverlight, already delineated in my previous post, and if I were prepared to accept the truly anemic design options offered by the lousy two(?!) gallery templates on offer. I mean, c'mon, a thumbnail-driven gallery, with basically zero configuration options, even in Encoder? Sorry, not happ'nin'...

    And frankly, I don't find the "minor editing" you refer to to be all that minor, if we presume the level of development experience indicated by BeDazzled Bill's post, or by El Nickell in this one. To novice developers looking for a multiplay option in Insert|Media (even if they grokked that they would have to use Encoder to realize it), they might not even realize that there was a problem with "Encoder had created a new folder with my computer name in it and spaces." Think about it—in the last three and half years, both here and at ADW, how many hundreds of times have we had to tell newbies "don't put spaces in file and folder names?"

    Would they recognize that "for some reason the file location of the videos did not update,"or would they be coming here plaintively asking why their videos weren't playing, as we have seen hundreds of times here? And how likely would a novice be to understand that "some empty comment tags above the doctype that I had to delete in order to get  the page to display correctly with the content centered?" After all, Encoder produced that markup, didn't it? Who am I to remove it? How many novice questions a month do we get here about how to center regular content, eh?

    The problem is that both the Encoder solution and Kathy's EW solution, in fact any multiplay solution that doesn't depend upon an application not included in the Web Professional studio, presumes a fundamental level of development knowledge and experience simply not held by the novice developer coming to Web development afresh, nor to FrontPage developers attempting the migration to EW. If you tell them that they can set up a playlist in EW, they expect to find the kind of workflow described above:

    1. Click Insert|Media|Silverlight Video...
    2. Choose the files to be added to the playlist
    3. Select one of the (only??) two gallery templates on offer
    4. Click "Encode" and... wait a while
    5. Preview generated player in browser

    If I didn't feel that those expectations were unrealistic, given the clear information to the contrary in Prerequisites for Using Microsoft Expression Web, I would almost sympathize with their plight, since the fact is that there simply is no multiplayer solution available in EW that doesn't automatically presume an advanced beginner to intermediate level of knowledge of HTML and CSS to achieve. 

    Lest my meaning be misunderstood, I am not saying that there should be. The very limitations evident in the two pathetic gallery templates available for Silverlight point up the obvious problem with integrating any particular solution into the application. Users coming from other applications with unrealistic expectations, or lazy users, or simply new users who aren't aware that alternatives exist, are locked into pisspoor solutions when there are many more powerful, or flexible, or attractive, or suited to the purpose, 3rd party applications available in the Web development world, and that's not even counting the immense flexibility offered by the infinity of roll-your-own solutions available to those who have achieved Web development competency.

    No, rather, after what I have learned in this thread, I would say that the appropriate reply to a post such as that which started the thread should be, "No, there is no drop-in multiplay player available in EW, for any format. There are ways you can do it using the apps in the studio, IF you have a moderate level of HTML and CSS knowledge. Say, commensurate with what is recommended in the Prerequisites for Using Microsoft Expression Web." To say otherwise ignores the evident facts of the situation.

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    Saturday, December 24, 2011 3:03 AM
  • Scott, the thread I posted, with the OP not even knowing what "nested" meant, still managed to get a multiplayer created with EW's silverlight player.  And anyone with a moderate level of HTML knowledge, which is a prerequisite for using EW, would find those instructions much easier to follow (probably requiring only my first try at the instructions).

    You've made your opinions quite clear, but how to do it is a choice, not an argument to win.


    • Edited by KathyW2 Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:50 AM
    Saturday, December 24, 2011 4:47 AM
  • And anyone with a moderate level of HTML knowledge, which is a prerequisite for using EW...

    ...how to do it is a choice, not an argument to win.

    No argument here. That is all I have been saying from the beginning:

    "Now, I will grant that you or I, or Kathy, or any of the more experienced developers here, could follow those instructions easily and expeditiously, since we share certain characteristics—knowledge and experience with HTML, CSS, and Expression Web."

    "There are ways you can do it using the apps in the studio, IF you have a moderate level of HTML and CSS knowledge. Say, commensurate with what is recommended in the Prerequisites for Using Microsoft Expression Web."

    Enough said...

    cheers,
    scott


    Please remember to "Mark as Answer" the responses that resolved your issue. It is common courtesy to recognize those who have helped you, and it also makes it easier for visitors to find the resolution later.
    • Edited by paladyn Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:50 AM
    Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:49 AM
  • Scott,

    Opening Encoder and pointing it at the files you want in the player does all the encoding and creates the playlist for you. Took me literally less than 5 minutes from opening Expression Encoder to having the player and its encoded videos output to my local EW website as Default.html.

    I made a few changes to the page in Expression Web, primarily changing the name of the file and adding the other content to the page. 10 minutes start to finish and that included changes I made to fit in with my file structure and the presentation that I wanted on the page.

    Now, I'll admit that for someone with less HTML/CSS skills it would have taken longer than 5 minutes to make the changes I made to the final page but they probably wouldn't need to do many of the changes I did because they won't be using my site structure. However, their basic page design should have already been done so maybe it wouldn't. Besides, they coould just as easily copy out the Silverlight player code and pop it into an existing page in the same directory leaving the Default.html page completely alone which would take even less time.

    Maybe I'll make a short video whenever I start creating tutorials again.


    Free Expression Web Tutorials
    For an Expression Web forum with without the posting issues try expressionwebforum.com
    Saturday, December 24, 2011 6:36 PM