From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V4 #74 Reply-To: navy-soup@smoe.org Sender: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk navy-soup-digest Saturday, July 21 2001 Volume 04 : Number 074 In This Digest: ----------------- Re: Website uplift ["Julian C. Dunn" ] Re: Website uplift ["Yaron" ] Re: Website uplift ["W. L. Estes" ] Re: Website uplift ["James McGarry" ] Re: Website uplift [Songbird22@aol.com] Re: Website uplift ["W. L. Estes" ] Re: Website uplift ["James McGarry" ] Re: Website uplift ["Julian C. Dunn" ] Re: Website uplift ["Julian C. Dunn" ] Re: Website uplift ["W. L. Estes" ] Re: Website uplift [Adam Lynch ] Song help... ["wade" ] Re: Song help... ["spark" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:29:38 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Website uplift On 20-Jul-2001 meredith wrote: > I just tried to check out sarahslean.com for the first time in a while. I > say "tried" because I can't get past the front page. > > Am I the only one who resents being shut out of a site just because I don't > want all of the bells and whistles running on my choice of web browser? I > use AdSubtract, which kills web site ad banners, cookies, pop-up windows > (even that horrifying, ubiquitous X10 pop-under ad that has been polluting > the Web for the past several weeks) and other JavaScript. Call me a > Luddite if you want, but I really don't like having to turn it off just to > get to a web site that wasn't set up with consideration for people with > older web browsers that don't have all the fluff. Don't worry, I'm also the same way. I use adzapper to get rid of banner ads and the like; I guess I still haven't gotten over the days when it was illegal to advertise commercially on the 'Net, and I wish it were possible to go back. *sigh* Music sites are typically the worst offenders in the bells-and-whistles category, pulling out Flash, Javascript, and so on. I don't hold it against them, though -- many of them want to push the web-design envelope in the same way that their music might push the envelope and I respect that. I more resent the fact that I'm not given a choice to opt-out of the fancy stuff and simply get to the content. (God forbid that the Web should be about content.) The absolute worst sites are those that put EVERYTHING in Flash-only pages, like Lindy's new website (www.lindymusic.com). That really cheezes me off. (rant mode off) - - Julian [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com * WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd350 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "90% of a solution to a problem is a scapegoat" ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 14:06:01 +0200 From: "Yaron" Subject: Re: Website uplift At 10:36 PM 7/19/01 -0400, meredith wrote: >Hi, > >I just tried to check out sarahslean.com for the first time in a while. >I say "tried" because I can't get past the front page. > >Am I the only one who resents being shut out of a site just because I >don't want all of the bells and whistles running on my choice of web >browser? I use AdSubtract, which kills web site ad banners, cookies, >pop-up windows (even that horrifying, ubiquitous X10 pop-under ad that >has been polluting the Web for the past several weeks) and other >JavaScript. Call me a Luddite if you want, but I really don't like >having to turn it off just to get to a web site that wasn't set up >with consideration for people with older web browsers that don't have >all the fluff. You can access the microsite directly by using this link: http://www.sarahslean.com/frameset.html As you will see once you enter the site - it is still under construction. I'm assuming the final version won't use a popup, this is just their way to resize the viewer's window (You'll have to do that manually). Yaron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:21:45 -0400 From: "W. L. Estes" Subject: Re: Website uplift > I just tried to check out sarahslean.com for the first time in a while. I > say "tried" because I can't get past the front page. > > Am I the only one who resents being shut out of a site just because I don't > want all of the bells and whistles running on my choice of web browser? I > use AdSubtract, which kills web site ad banners, cookies, pop-up windows > (even that horrifying, ubiquitous X10 pop-under ad that has been polluting > the Web for the past several weeks) and other JavaScript. Call me a > Luddite if you want, but I really don't like having to turn it off just to > get to a web site that wasn't set up with consideration for people with > older web browsers that don't have all the fluff. Well, I liked the previous layout of www.sarahslean.com. It was easy to navigate and I found my way to the information I wanted. But I guess that's the point: the new javascript provides no content and obstructs my path to what content there is. FYI, www.sarahslean.com/index2.html lands you in a non-frames and non-javascript-requiring place to get around. Mostly, my reaction to the new design is disappointment: anyone getting paid to do web design should know better. In conclusion, I would say this to the designer of the site: Please don't make it hard for me to follow the career of an artist whose work I truly admire. You can do better and you know it. - --Will ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:01:35 -0400 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: Website uplift - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian C. Dunn" Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:29 AM > get to the content. (God forbid that the Web should be about content.) The > absolute worst sites are those that put EVERYTHING in Flash-only pages, like > Lindy's new website (www.lindymusic.com). That really cheezes me off. I blame the suits for the Flash-heavy sites. This stuff is their wet dream, it looks, sounds, plays like a tv commercial, which they understand. But it shuts out half their audience which I don't think they get. Web-designers are just competing for the bucks (since there's no so many of them) in what amounts to a shark pool, so they have to be slick, flashy and push the envelope. Still, it might be a fair paradigm for them since the net and tv are slowly (and bumpily) converging. YMMV. James. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 10:32:55 EDT From: Songbird22@aol.com Subject: Re: Website uplift James says: "I blame the suits for the Flash-heavy sites. This stuff is their wet dream, it looks, sounds, plays like a tv commercial, which they understand. But it shuts out half their audience which I don't think they get." Man, you guys are rough! :) I have the unique position of being both a singer/songwriter AND a web/graphics designer :P So right now I am struggling w/ the redesign of my site and an issue I bet every designer struggles with: how can I make my site LOOK visually incredible AND make it user-friendly so everyone can view it? I have tons of content and it's hard to squeeze it all in sometimes in a way that is easy to navigate yet still looks new and hip and all that... every time I finish one potential site idea and it looks great on Internet Explorer, it doesn't work properly on Netscape (ew). Then I fix the site so it opens in a pop-up window and find that lots of people don't like those :) So it's not so easy sometimes to please everyone... I like the idea behind the SS microsite and I think it looks cool. I don't mind pop-ups and cool Flash sites (probably because I have a cable modem so everything is fast on my machine, but I understand not everyone has that)... I am looking forward to seeing the new SS site... do we know if Atlantic is controlling the design/content? :) I like looking at all Flash sites, but when there isn't a plain site or HTML version, it's very annoying... and if a site doesn't load in 15 secons, I generally won't look at it...which is a shame, I bet there's a lot of cool sites out there that lose most of their audience because of that... I think Steve mentioned Sarah's roommate designed the microsite... - -jessica www.jessicaweiser.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:08:02 -0400 From: "W. L. Estes" Subject: Re: Website uplift > Man, you guys are rough! :) I have the unique position of being both > a singer/songwriter AND a web/graphics designer :P So right now I am > struggling w/ the redesign of my site and an issue I bet every > designer struggles with: how can I make my site LOOK visually > incredible AND make it user-friendly so everyone can view it? I have Follow the standards. Provide alternatives. Provide *content*. If I want to see amazing visual art, I'll go to a museum and look at paintings by people who are Masters of their medium. When I visit a website, I want to find out information. > tons of content and it's hard to squeeze it all in sometimes in a > way that is easy to navigate yet still looks new and hip and all > that... every time I finish one potential site idea and it looks > great on Internet Explorer, it doesn't work properly on Netscape > (ew). Then I fix the site so it opens in a pop-up window and find > that lots of people don't like those :) So it's not so easy > sometimes to please everyone... Are you trying to inform your audience about something or are you trying to design fluff? The best practice these days is to provide both in separate interfaces. But why provide fluff? If I want another window, I'll open one myself, thank you. > I like the idea behind the SS microsite and I think it looks cool. I Jess, could you say what you like about it? For my money/time/energy, a javascript shell which contains no content and blocks me and my browser from what I used to be able to get at is at best pointless. But, you have a different point of view, so, could you explain yourself some more? I'd like to know. > don't mind pop-ups and cool Flash sites (probably because I have a > cable modem so everything is fast on my machine, but I understand > not everyone has that)... I am looking forward to seeing the new SS And also, flash is only supported by proprietary browsers which run on a very limited number of operating systems? What about the at least 20+ other browsers that run on linux alone... > I like looking at all Flash sites, but when there isn't a plain site > or HTML version, it's very annoying... and if a site doesn't load in > 15 secons, I generally won't look at it...which is a shame, I bet > there's a lot of cool sites out there that lose most of their > audience because of that... If I want art, I'll go somewhere where art is practiced for its own sake; if I want television, I own one of those already. - --Will ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:13:51 -0400 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: Website uplift - ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:32 AM > Man, you guys are rough! :) I have the unique position of being both a singer/songwriter AND a web/graphics designer :P So Well it's Flash that mainly bothers me, esp. all-Flash. I like the choice, lo-fi or high-bandwidth. Often I'll pick the high bandwidth option, esp. at work where there's a fast connection and web-caching. But when I'm at home and it net is flaky or (increasingly rarely) forced to use dial-up. I want text and jpgs and nothing else, no pop-ups, no Flash, nada and I'll sometimes even turn off the pics if I'm really pressed for bandwidth. >right now I am struggling w/ the redesign of my site and an issue I bet every designer struggles with: how can I make my site >LOOK visually incredible AND make it user-friendly so everyone can view it? I have tons of content and it's hard to squeeze it YMMV, but for my money I like the Splash Screen where you get a graphic and two or occasionally three choices, high, medium and low-bandwidth. With low being just text and pics. >all in sometimes in a way that is easy to navigate yet still looks new and hip and all that... every time I finish one potential site >idea and it looks great on Internet Explorer, it doesn't work properly on Netscape (ew). Then I fix the site so it opens in a Yeah, there isn't really a universally agreed upon standard. (I mean, there _is_ but several groups ignore it and add their on little quirks). James. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:48:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Website uplift On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 Songbird22@aol.com wrote: > James says: > "I blame the suits for the Flash-heavy sites. This stuff is their wet > dream, it looks, sounds, plays like a tv commercial, which they understand. > But it shuts out half their audience which I don't think they get." > > Man, you guys are rough! :) I have the unique position of being both a > singer/songwriter AND a web/graphics designer :P So right now I am > struggling w/ the redesign of my site and an issue I bet every > designer struggles with: how can I make my site LOOK visually > incredible AND make it user-friendly so everyone can view it? I have At least you understand this concept - that not only should sites be visually nice, but user-friendly and viewable by everyone in some shape or form. Just from experience I see that many designers haven't a friggin' clue about the latter. Oftentimes I suspect they use some program like Dreamweaver which emits code, without actually knowing HTML themselves, and don't bother to test it on any browser other than the one they're using. - - Julian - -- [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com * WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd350 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "90% of a solution to a problem is a scapegoat" ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:56:33 -0400 (EDT) From: "Julian C. Dunn" Subject: Re: Website uplift On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, W. L. Estes wrote: > Follow the standards. Provide alternatives. Provide *content*. If I > want to see amazing visual art, I'll go to a museum and look at > paintings by people who are Masters of their medium. When I visit a > website, I want to find out information. That's your perspective and you're entitled to it. But if people were surfing the Net only for the content and nothing else, we might as well typeset everything in tags, or send everything as Content-Type: text/plain. People nowadays treat the Web like it's a magazine or a television channel, like any other kind of media, and expect it to look good on top of the content. I wouldn't read a newspaper that was typeset all in Courier, for example. > > don't mind pop-ups and cool Flash sites (probably because I have a > > cable modem so everything is fast on my machine, but I understand > > not everyone has that)... I am looking forward to seeing the new SS > > And also, flash is only supported by proprietary browsers which run on > a very limited number of operating systems? What about the at least > 20+ other browsers that run on linux alone... It's up to the browser to support the plugin, then. The generic plugin API is very well documented. If Mozilla and Konqueror, both open-source Unix browsers, can successfully use the Flash plugin, there's no reason why others shouldn't be able to. - - Julian - -- [ Julian C. Dunn - jdunn@aquezada.com * WWW: http://www.aquezada.com/ ] [ FuE exfe94 a+++ Ifte/slc lonca r- ps++ bs+ t++/*t C+++$/C! w+++ p7 LF+++ ] [N++/N! cd350 pr++ g+++ S-/S *x++ Fa+++/Fa$/Fa! m1 b+ fc+++/ E>+ rl-- *d s!] [ "90% of a solution to a problem is a scapegoat" ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:19:28 -0400 From: "W. L. Estes" Subject: Re: Website uplift > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:56:33 -0400 (EDT) > That's your perspective and you're entitled to it. But if people were > surfing the Net only for the content and nothing else, we might as well > typeset everything in tags, or send everything as Content-Type: > text/plain. People nowadays treat the Web like it's a magazine or a > television channel, like any other kind of media, and expect it to look > good on top of the content. I wouldn't read a newspaper that was typeset > all in Courier, for example. Actually, no. Take a typical math or science text book. They use a great deal of visual layout and still provide a vast amount of content. The two can easily work together. But if there is no content, there is no reason for anything else. E.g., the local newspaper in my town a few years ago decided that it needed to have more pictures and fewer words and this move caused some bit of disgust around here. Yes, it looked better, but the newspaper had diminished its reason for being. > It's up to the browser to support the plugin, then. The generic plugin API > is very well documented. If Mozilla and Konqueror, both open-source Unix > browsers, can successfully use the Flash plugin, there's no reason why > others shouldn't be able to. Julian, can you clarify something for me? Is it just the plugin API you're referring to or the behavior that constitutes "flash" itself you're talking about? Say, what do you all think about turning this list into a programming discussion forum? Would Sarah's "new" voice sound ok if she were singing, for example, something written in C++? Thanks, - --Will ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 13:09:19 -0400 From: Adam Lynch Subject: Re: Website uplift And thus spoke W. L. Estes: > discussion forum? Would Sarah's "new" voice sound ok if she were > singing, for example, something written in C++? I'd venture no. However, something in C# might be quite nice. - -- - --- AdamL. alynch@sprawl.net http://sprawl.net Perfection is what we achieve when we lower our standards. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 20:03:57 -0500 From: "wade" Subject: Song help... Hi All. Can someone help me ID a Sarah song? I'm probably completely wrong on the lyrics so if anyone knows what she's saying...help me out. :) Here's how I think the song starts: "i'm afraid of the stars when i gaze at the sky / and my death is afloat and it fills up my eyes / do you wake in the night to the eyes you don't see / to the horrible sound of your heart being weak? / i do" As for the new album, I'd much rather have new songs ("Last Year's War" being at the top of my list) than newly recorded versions of previous songs. The originals were so beautiful - why redo them? Oh well...as long as there's no new version of my favorite song "Blue Parade" planned, I'll be fine. ;) Wade ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:40:52 -0500 From: "spark" Subject: Re: Song help... As far as I know, Sarah has never named that particular song. It's usually just referred to as "I Do." I'm really thinking Last Year's War will be a hidden track... Because Sarah DID SAY it WOULD be on the new album. And she wouldn't wanna be a liar. ;) - - Ian - ----- Original Message ----- From: "wade" To: Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:03 PM Subject: Song help... > Hi All. > > Can someone help me ID a Sarah song? I'm probably completely wrong on the > lyrics so if anyone knows what she's saying...help me out. :) Here's how I > think the song starts: > > "i'm afraid of the stars when i gaze at the sky / and my death is afloat and > it fills up my eyes / do you wake in the night to the eyes you don't see / to > the horrible sound of your heart being weak? / i do" > > As for the new album, I'd much rather have new songs ("Last Year's War" being > at the top of my list) than newly recorded versions of previous songs. The > originals were so beautiful - why redo them? Oh well...as long as there's no > new version of my favorite song "Blue Parade" planned, I'll be fine. ;) > > Wade ------------------------------ End of navy-soup-digest V4 #74 ******************************