Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Checkbox to export .vtt + .txt with .html at once #92

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

tsmdt
Copy link

@tsmdt tsmdt commented Oct 15, 2024

Hi!

At the moment it is not possible to generate all 3 available export formats (.html, .txt and .vtt) at once - the transcription pipeline has to run individually to generate one of these 3 export formats, which is quite costly (in time and computation) if you want to generate multiple export formats at once (as I wanted to do).

To fix this, I implemented a checkbox check_box_export_all_formats to toggle the additional output of .vtt and .txt files. The additional output files are stored in the same folder the user has chosen for their main transcription file. I have also included translations for the new checkbox.

To give the new checkbox a bit more space in the UI, I increased the height of self.geometry by 5px.

noScribe_update

@kaixxx
Copy link
Owner

kaixxx commented Oct 18, 2024

Thank you for the contribution. You have a good point here, but I would implement it a little different. My goal is to not clutter the main window with too many options. I see two alternatives:

  1. Adding a special 'file format' in the dialog for selecting the output file: "output all formats (html, vtt, txt)"
  2. Adding an option in the noScribe editor to export vtt and txt (in the 'save as' dialog).

I would prefer option 2, because it ensures that the corrections made in the html-file during the editing and reviewing process also make it into the vtt- and/or txt-file. This would be the cleanest workflow I guess. What do you think?

@tsmdt
Copy link
Author

tsmdt commented Oct 21, 2024

Hi, yes that makes sense and I would prefer option 2 as well. Let me know if I can be of any help ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants