From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest)
To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org
Subject: navy-soup-digest V4 #77
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        Tuesday, July 24 2001        Volume 04 : Number 077



                                In This Digest:
                               -----------------
  new sound/"Book Smart..."           ["Kelly Goodlad" <badlass@hotmail.com>]
  Re: Website uplift                       ["W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>]
  Re: Website uplift                       ["W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>]
  "Book Smart, Street Stupid"              [What? Management <what@ican.net>]
  Re: Sweet Ones                           [What? Management <what@ican.net>]
  Re: Website uplift                       ["W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>]
  Cabaret/NewVoice/Navigation (some OT)  [Heather Fischer <typicalvampire@ya]
  Re: Website uplift                       ["W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>]
  Re: Website uplift                       ["W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>]
  Murder in Small Town X                              [RazzberryRain@aol.com]
  Fw: Murder in Small Town X         ["James McGarry" <jmcgarry@UoGuelph.CA>]
  Re: the voice                  [Greg Teltschik <gteltschik@mindspring.com>]
  Re. website uplift             [Greg Teltschik <gteltschik@mindspring.com>]
  RE: Website uplift                            ["Gina" <sophie197@home.com>]
  Murder in Small Town X       [Kristilyn Robertson <kroberts@connect.ab.ca>]
  Re: Website uplift                          [Steve I <kamesan@bigfoot.com>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:01:56 -0400
From: "Kelly Goodlad" <badlass@hotmail.com>
Subject: new sound/"Book Smart..."

> > Am I the only one here who actually likes drunken cabaret singers?

Noooo!  I am positively peached with Sarah's new sound. :) Absolutely 
thrilled that "Tori (Amos) has left the building." ! (NO offence to Tori-I 
think she's great too, but Sarah's different and it's good that the ways in 
which she's different are coming through more and more.)

On another note, I wanted to mention that "Book Smart, Street Stupid" is 
becoming one of my favourite Sarah songs.  It is so heartbreaking and 
beautiful.

Kelly


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:31:49 -0400
From: "W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>
Subject: Re: Website uplift

> I can agree with you somewhat, but I feel that the Web, whether we like it or
> not, has deviated from its original purpose as a content-only medium, and any
> attempts by anyone today to say "to hell with the visual niceities, stick with
> the content" will come up short with the majority of viewers. Whether or not
> this is a good thing is a different matter, but for those of us designing
> websites, we can no longer focus strictly on the content and have to make it
> look nice, too.

And this is fine with me. What I see a lot of people doing is: "Make
it look nice and to hell with having content." Yes, a javascript-only
"micro-site" falls in that category. <noscript> could have easily been
used and wasn't.

> The plugin API itself. The Flash plugin is shipped in the form of a shared
> library (DLL for you Windows folks) which exports a bunch of function calls. If
> you're interested I can look into it more for you off-list, because I suspect
> most Soupers aren't particularly interested in details about C++ on this list.
> :)

Yes, that'd be great, if you could point me in the right direction.

> I don't think anything can top Adam's comment about C# so I'll leave well
> enough alone.

Yes and what with all the open source crowd talking about emulating
M$.net, Sarah can be both trendy and multiplatform.

- --Will

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:09:32 -0400
From: "W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>
Subject: Re: Website uplift

> Not necessarily, though I do use IE. I was thinking of Opera & AOL (which
> I'm no fan of, don't get me wrong) :) Which seem to be the ones that most
> people use who don't want to use straight IE (I know that AOL is really IE
> disguised). I guess though, that I don't know of 20 other browsers (as
> someone mentioned here before). Can someone who knows of these let me know.
> If they're free to download I'd be more than happy to try them to see how
> sites look there.

Anyone who is interested in such a list, let me know and I'll compile
it in the next few days and send it off list.

> But when I look through my site's stats of the top 15 "agents" that my
> visitors use I see 1-13 are all Windows or compatible.

Circular reasoning: I only need win/compat because only win/compat
users show up. Yes, there are a lot of win/compat users
around--probably most of anybody's users fall in that category
(specialty sites excepted), but when I see win/compat-exclusive sites,
I tend not to go back--because the site tells me I'm unwelcome. If,
because I opt out of win/compat, I miss out on the bells and whistles,
well, that's my fault because I made my choice to use an operating
system some time back for my own reasons. And that's fine.

> Oh, I know. It's just the folks I've talked to who use Netscape all say, "I
> won't use IE cuz I hate Bill Gates." So that's how I figure lots of people
> feel. Not all. But certainly some. I just wish they all worked the same.
> That's all.

Surely you dont want people/vendors to follow existing standards and
creat interoperable products? If they did, we wouldn't be having this
discussion--or not most of it at any rate. :)

- --Will

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:56:26 -0400
From: What? Management <what@ican.net>
Subject: "Book Smart, Street Stupid"

Lyric snippets from "Book Smart, Street Stupid":

"I was born by an old streetlight where the men lean out of ther windows at
night and I was the lead in the orphan choir and I sang with all my might
until I grew up too high... then oh all the notes I used to play on the
double bass in the b-list ballet..."

"...so don't look for me in confession booth, I'm with my paints and my
pens and my dry vermouth..."

Drunken cabaret?
Indeed.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:05:25 -0400
From: What? Management <what@ican.net>
Subject: Re: Sweet Ones

>Could someone please send me the lyrics to Sweet Ones? Thank you so much!!




Sweet Ones

they're counting on the guilty conscience to save you
but I'm banking on the deep blue eyes and the face too
they always said always said always said you were easy
if I could have just one piece of that I'd be sold

come over to the sweet ones baby
I'll tell you where to go
I can't see them when they're walking sideways I don't know
I don't know

come over to my house I'll tend to you solo
so fabulous and well dressed up like a talk show
they always said always said always said you were easy
if I could have just one piece of that I'd be sold

come over to the sweet ones baby
I'll tell you where to go
I can't see them when they're walking sideways I don't know
I don't know

oh so sad we
love you madly
want to take you home

if I could have just one piece of that I'd be sold

come over to the sweet ones baby
I'll tell you where to go
I can't see them when they're walking sideways I don't know
I don't know

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 12:41:18 -0400
From: "W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>
Subject: Re: Website uplift

> "micro-site" falls in that category. <noscript> could have easily been
> used and wasn't.

And now I see a refresh link at the top of the page. A good
alternative since it lets those of us who dont do pop-ups and their
ilk still get to the content. Would it be possible to include a link
into the frameset as well from the front page (a link not embedded in
javascript)?  (since that's where the "new" look is.)

- --Will

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Heather Fischer <typicalvampire@yahoo.com>
Subject: Cabaret/NewVoice/Navigation (some OT)

I like to balance black and white in my musical
listening tastes.  I admit, I miss the more timid,
vocally pure Sarah of Universe era, but the new
stuff is and will continue to grow on me.

I noticed the new voice at the Rivoli show, too. 
And for some reason, she seemed a bit more detached
from herself, or less approachable or something.  I
don't know how to word it.  Just different.

As for the navigation thing, I like it though not
as much as the layout of the old stuff.  You know,
you have basic bottom line informative (like Margot
O'Breslin's which is an example of informative
except that it hasn't been UPDATED in like 900
years)

and then there was a time at the Pepper McGowan
site that if you went to sounds it would
automatically open a video clip of her playing a
song at a webcast that would always crash out my
home brower.  After myself and a dozen others
emailed the webmaster he took it out.

> "...so don't look for me in confession booth, I'm
> with my paints and my
> pens and my dry vermouth..."
> 
> Drunken cabaret?
> Indeed.

I like to space listening to something like Kate
Bush or Sarah Slean with something like Maria McKee
or someone else (Janis/Dylan) with a "whiskey
voice".    If you like the minimally produced,
angsty liquor throat from time to time, get Pepper
McGowan's BadStars.  I will wager that 99.9% of
Sarah fans will hate it but you know that's okay. 
You just have to understand that she's a piano girl
coming more from the Tom Waits side of pretty than
the Sarah M/Tori genre.

Also, when I saw her last show in June she did a
couple tunes from the album coming out in winter
which IS composed of "lusty barroom want songs" and
there were two references to Gin.

Maybe Sarah can bring the vermouth and they can
bump into each other and make a decent martini.



heather 3


PS Jess Weiser-Listened to your stuff on mp3.com
and will probably buy your album this month!










=====
CLICK US FOR CHICKS WHO ROCK!! *if you can't click, then cut and paste*
http://www.sarahslean.com
http://www.peppermcgowan.com
http://members.aol.com/obreslin
http://thedent.com http://www.tori.com
http://www.fionapple.com
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 13:14:59 -0400
From: "W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>
Subject: Re: Website uplift

> I've been following this "website uplift" thread with great interest.  Jess 
> is right in that I didn't design the microsite, but I am still involved 
> with the site so I'm very interested in all opinions of the new 
> microsite.  So far we've heard mostly negative reactions.  Still interested 
> in those, but you couldn't *all* hate it, could you?  I'd like to hear from 
> those who like it as well (personally, I think it's great and it really 
> evokes the spirit of Sarah's music, at least for those who can see it!)

Actually, my problems are not with the microsite; my problems were
with the fact that all-of-a-sudden, I was blocked from any access to
the site--until I dug in the html itself and figured out where the
content had gone.

> This whole content vs. design/pictures thing is intriguing to me.  My 
> personal view is that a website's purpose is to communicate.  To that end, 
> who's to say that text is the be all and end all in reaching that 
> goal?  Take a website for an environmental issues group.  Sure, a load of 
> text about how we're destroying the environment can help communicate the 
> message, but couldn't the same be said for a picture of a beach covered 
> with oil and dead fish and birds?   Or a photo of a skyline dominated by 
> smokestacks belching heavy black clouds into the air?

Steve, ideally, there'd be both. Exclusively one or the other would,
as you suggest in your message, not tell as much of the story as could
be done. But what is happening increasingly on the web is that, unless
you have a proprietary plugin for a proprietary browser which runs on
a proprietary operating system, you cant see the dancing bird which
gets covered in oil by the dancing ship and no matter what you have,
you have less than a chance in hell of finding some, for example,
graphs or statistics on just how much area of beach was covered in oil
(whether by dancing or non-dancing ships) last year.

> In the case of Sarah's site, it's not just about giving details about an 
> album or listing tour dates, or tracing the path of her career, although 
> those things are undeniably important.  It's not even strictly about 
> Sarah's music, although that's obviously hugely important too.  It's about 
> communicating what Sarah is all about as an artist (musical and 
> visual).  As many of you know, Sarah is also a very talented visual artist, 
> and her art is a big part of the new microsite.  Sarah had a lot of input 
> on this microsite from the beginning, and consequently it's more about her 
> and her vision than the old site, which is more reflective of how *I* saw 
> Sarah a few years ago.

I'll respond to this from my personal viewpoint--and not from a more
general viewpoint of web design or accessibility or anything...

Certainly it's good if Sarah's information outlets reflect her vision
and ideas. And as long as those outlets still communicate the things I
want to know: (e.g.) when can I buy the new EP or when is she going to
perform somewhere I can be in attendance, then I am happy. I'll put up
with the oddities of my browser of choice as long as those oddities
are within certain limits. It was the javascript that got to me. Or
rather, it was the javascript-only aspect of www.sarahslean.com that
got to me. (Yes, that's been fixed and I appreciate that. I don't know
of any other musician/artists sites which are so responsive.)

> At 02:22 PM 01-07-21 -0400, someone wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> I respectfully disagree... again, I think that pictures can communicate an 
> idea just as well or better than words.  I've already given an ecology 
> example, but how about another - a newspaper could describe the pattern of 
> events in a war all it wants, but I wouldn't get a better idea of what was 
> going on than if I had a simple graphic with a map and symbols of troop 
> movements and so on.  Similarly, I could look at a table full of numbers 
> for hours and not understand it, but I could glance at a bar graph or line 
> graph of those same numbers and understand it right away.  Like many 
> people, I am a visual person.

What you say is true--so far as it goes. The newspaper in question,
from what I remember, however, made a drastic cut in its usage of
words. Maybe I wasn't clear on that. It wasn't that they up'd their
picture usage, it was that they dumbed themselves down. You're talking
about charts and other things which help to convey ideas--the local
newspaper was talking about more photographs because those silly
stories (yes, the ones with all the words and stuff) were too hard to
read.

> Text is not the only way to communicate ideas.  Pictures communicate ideas 
> too.  So does sound, and music, and animation.  And yes, so does 
> design.  So why can't pictures, sound, music, animation, and design count 
> as content?

For SArah's site, music is a great way to communicate. I'm not so sure
that it would be for everyone. But even if the environmentalists found
a good song about the type of disaster they were interested in
preventing, if that was the only way one could access their content,
then there would be people who would be left out.

> To me, saying that content=text on the web is like saying content=lyrics in 
> music.  It's not telling the whole story.

Text is accessible. javascript prevents a good number of us from
seeing *any* of the story.

> Anyway, all that aside, nothing is communicated on sarahslean.com if you 
> can't get past the splash page.  I didn't even know about AdSubtract's 
> pop-up killing thing, so many thanks to Meth for bringing that problem to 
> my attention.

javascript is not accessible for everyone. Even when it is, some
people turn it off for a number of reasons--typically ranging from
ad-blocking to security. ("Hey, I wrote this code and you should run
it for me, ok?")

So, thanks for the discussion--your points are well presented. And
thanks for seeing that www.sarahslean.com is usable for all of us
again.

- --Will

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 14:22:41 -0400
From: "W. L. Estes" <wlestes@uncg.edu>
Subject: Re: Website uplift

> Wow.  So much interesting stuff on this list all of a sudden!!

And it's all text, too. ;)

> There's absolutely no Sarah content in this, so those of you who are bored 
> with the whole web design thing can just skip it. :)

echo that for my post.

> I'm somewhat of a Web designer, though I'm probably considered pretty 
> pedestrian because I have no graphic design talent or ability whatsoever 
> and I'm primarily concerned with universal accessibility of my sites, 
> starting with Lynx and going up from there.  That puts me in with about 
> .0000001% of web designers nowadays, but I'm proud of that so I'm not 
> planning to change anytime soon.

If you want to be formal about this, there is the "Best Viewed  with
Any Browser" campaign as well.

> I'm sure Sarah's microsite is very pretty and accurately reflects her art, 
> both visual and musical.  But as Steve himself pointed out, all that is 
> worthless if you can't even get to see it.  Accessibility is the key.

Amen.

> I admit, I use Netscape mainly because it's not Internet Explorer.  It's 
> the first graphical browser I ever used, and I always like to support the 

Did you catch the word "graphical" in the line above? I.e. the web
isn't even inherently graphical. Sure, If you have pictures and keep
an eye to color schemes for background and such, you can work wonders,
but some of us surf the web with our monitors turned off.

> underdog.  But it has been very good to me and I have very few problems 
> with it.  I actually have had many more problems with IE than Netscape.
> 
> As a web designer, I have found that Netscape, while it doesn't adhere to 
> every piece of the W3C convention (but hey, that's what Notepad is for :), 
> is still light-years closer to the convention than IE.  It seems as though 
> Micro$oft is out to replace HTML with a markup language of its own making, 
> and I can't support that at all.  As Julian pointed out, despite what 

OH no, Mr. Gates and friends have embraced HTML and want to extend
it. ;)

> Design it the way you want to, sure, but keep in mind that all of the work 
> you put into the design is going to be for naught if you exclude a 
> significant percentage of Web users from seeing your creation.  As Mike 

KNow your audience. Think about what parts of your presentation are
for show and what parts are for content. (and why and how those two overlap).

- --Will

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:31:10 EDT
From: RazzberryRain@aol.com
Subject: Murder in Small Town X

Does anyone know anything about Sarah's part in this?  I've checked out the 
official website, and I didn't see Sarah anywhere...

Mollie

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:37:07 -0400
From: "James McGarry" <jmcgarry@UoGuelph.CA>
Subject: Fw: Murder in Small Town X

From: <RazzberryRain@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:31 PM
> Does anyone know anything about Sarah's part in this?  I've checked out
the
> official website, and I didn't see Sarah anywhere...

 She plays the piano player/singer. She should be in the first 5 episodes.

 James.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 21:39:13 +0100
From: Greg Teltschik <gteltschik@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: the voice

Having just found the EP today, I finally feel capable of weighing in on 
this topic.  I had listened to the Real Audio clips fromt he website, but 
to  be honest they were hideous, and I couldn't tell if it was the music or 
the encoding.  Suffice to say, it was indeed the encoding.

The voice that Sarah is using on the new tracks is definitely the same 
voice I've heard her using live.  I don't really date back to the Blue 
Parade and Universe time spheres with Sarah (though I did own both of the 
albums), mainly because I wasn't that interested.  It was only in the last 
1-2 years that I finally got to see her live and see what the fuss was 
about.  I like her voice.  To me, it sounds as if she has worked with a 
vocal trainer or someone who is helping her to sing and not destroy her voice.

Having said that, I also detect the slightest tinges of audio manipulation 
on the recorded tracks.  In particular, I definitely hear a bit of reverb 
applied to her voice on the first track as well as something else, which 
may be akin to a sonic maximizer or equivalent.  The tonality of her voice 
is just not quite right.  Granted, it's not quite the same as Sarah live, 
but it's missing some mid-range warmth as well.  I suppose those like Tab 
who've seen her lots know what I'm talking about.  In any event, the 
manipulation ends up enhancing some of the natural vibrato in Sarah's voice 
and making it more pronounced, which I imagine is what's bothering people 
so much.

Greg



Greg Teltschik
gteltschik@mindspring.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:10:05 +0100
From: Greg Teltschik <gteltschik@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re. website uplift

This whole website discussion has been quite interesting, as each person 
gets to rave on about their likes and dislikes about the web medium.  I've 
found it quite interesting as one who predates the WWW on the Internet.

I still remember rummaging around in cyberspace and finding these strange 
directories all over the place called "www," which contained loads of text 
files and small images.  Using text-only DECterms at the time, "browser" 
was not part of the collective lexicon.  It wasn't until 1994 that I became 
aquainted with HTML and Netscape (some of you may remember that HTML and 
HTTP stand for Hyper-TEXT markup language and hyper-TEXT transport 
protocol).  At that time, most web pages had a white background, and 
standard fonts.  Occasionally there were graphics and things, but mostly it 
was about information.  As I remember from visiting the NCSA web site 
(http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu), the original intent was to provide a standard 
way of displaying formatted text documents across multiple operating 
systems.  At the time, there were numerous formats for the various systems, 
which made everything difficult.  HTML changed all that.

 From it's humble beginnings, the web quickly changed.  Soon people were 
tired of the text-only pages and wanted something flashier.  Support for 
color, animated gifs, and frames quickly became the norm as users began 
demanding more and more.  I remember seeing loads of pages where the first 
hundred lines were background color set commands, which gave a webpage a 
sort of color burst effect before the final color was displayed.  I 
remember the period where your eyes hurt from seeing pages with twenty 
different animated gifs flashing their images (anyone remember color 
scrolling lines and animated email mailboxes?).  Then people started 
developing plug-ins to do more advanced graphic effects.  This is where the 
macromedia flash, quicktime, realaudio and other plug-ins started.  For a 
while places like Netscape tried to keep a list of all the plug-ins, though 
they weren't always successful.  Many of those plug-ins aren't in use 
today, I imagine.  Scripting languages weren't far behind.

Once the plug-ins arrived and the growth of the Internet began, web 
development tools like HoTMetaL began to proliferate.  They eventually 
matured to the programs we have today, like FrontPage and 
Dreamweaver.  Where you once needed to learn the code, now you can just hit 
"export to web page" from the file menu and let software take care of the rest.

So, overall, where to I stand on the whole web page thing?  I'm not 
intimidated by flashy graphics, flash plug-ins, and the like.  I can deal 
with them fine.  But what I need is a webpage that loads in a reasonable 
time, allows me to get to the information I need quickly, and doesn't throw 
roadblocks in my way.  If it looks great, cool, but I'll take functional 
over "looks good" any day.  If it's a music site, and I can't find the tour 
dates quickly, it's useless.  Likewise a huge computer site without a 
search feature.  And if I have to wait 5 minutes for your flash graphics to 
load over my dial up line, I'm heading elsewhere or looking for a back 
door, never to return.  It's no wonder that while I find Tara MacLean's web 
site to be a good balance on the whole (http://www.taramaclean.com), it's 
not terribly surprising that I quickly learned the URL for the first page 
AFTER the graphics heavy splash page.

For me, it's all about the information first, the "pizzazz" second.



Greg Teltschik
gteltschik@mindspring.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:33:10 -0400
From: "Gina" <sophie197@home.com>
Subject: RE: Website uplift

[quote]
Text is not the only way to communicate ideas.  Pictures communicate ideas
too.  So does sound, and music, and animation.  And yes, so does
design.  So why can't pictures, sound, music, animation, and design count
as content? [/quote]

I gotta say, I like the way the new site looks, but it confused me at first.
I went to the site, read the top news item on the microsite, and then closed
the window,  looking for the "actual" site. I clicked on the picture and
nothing happened (this made me feel silly). Then I noticed the "click here
for microsite" thing. The microsite still gives me that impression.. it's
not
an "actual" webpage. I just figured that you guys were still working on
that.

Graphics means something to me, close to as much as content. Atlantic's
Sarah page is relatively easy to navigate, but.. what the hell were they
thinking? It's looks lousy!

I'm going to publish my web page soon, I'll post the URL here, and I expect
everyone to be this honest with me. :) I'm just stuck figuring out what to
do for the crazies with screen resolutions less than or equal to 800x600.

Gina

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:22:06
From: Kristilyn Robertson <kroberts@connect.ab.ca>
Subject: Murder in Small Town X

Hey guys, 

When is the premiere of this show?? Tonight or tomorrow??

Also, I love Sarah's "new voice"....of course, it was always Sarah's
voice....I guess I should call it the new sound. I think the songs that are
going to be on the new album are very lovely. Especially Sweet Ones...that
was the first one I transcribed to the piano and I love playing her version
and mine as well!!

Any idea when this album will be out? Just a general idea, seeing as no one
knows an exact date. Thanks!

Kristilyn
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Heathcliff
It's me, Cathy 
I've come home
I'm so cold
Let me in your window 
(Kate Bush)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
                         ICQ: 58758419 
E-mail: kroberts@connect.ab.ca

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:25:47 -0400
From: Steve I <kamesan@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Re: Website uplift

Hi guys,

*loving* the discussion about website stuff.  Sarahslean.com specific, AND 
opinions about the web in general.

At 12:41 PM 01-07-23 -0400, Will wrote:
>And now I see a refresh link at the top of the page. A good
>alternative since it lets those of us who dont do pop-ups and their
>ilk still get to the content. Would it be possible to include a link
>into the frameset as well from the front page (a link not embedded in
>javascript)?  (since that's where the "new" look is.)

The designer and I are meeting this week to talk about the site, and this 
is definitely one of the things on the agenda.  The refresh link and the 
fine type link were quick-fixes but hopefully we can work out a more 
complete solution so everyone can see the new design.

>rather, it was the javascript-only aspect of www.sarahslean.com that
>got to me. (Yes, that's been fixed and I appreciate that. I don't know
>of any other musician/artists sites which are so responsive.)

Nothing's worse than alienating your fans, or potential fans.  Besides, 
when visitors to the site make suggestions that improve the site, then 
everybody wins!


Gina typed:
>I gotta say, I like the way the new site looks, but it confused me at first.
>I went to the site, read the top news item on the microsite, and then closed
>the window,  looking for the "actual" site. I clicked on the picture and
>nothing happened (this made me feel silly). Then I noticed the "click here
>for microsite" thing. The microsite still gives me that impression.. it's
>not
>an "actual" webpage. I just figured that you guys were still working on
>that.

Thanks for pointing out what is probably a source of confusion for a lot of 
people, Gina.  You're right that the microsite is just that, a mini-site, a 
kind of a  trailer for the full redesign to come.

>I'm going to publish my web page soon, I'll post the URL here, and I expect
>everyone to be this honest with me. :) I'm just stuck figuring out what to
>do for the crazies with screen resolutions less than or equal to 800x600.

Hey Gina, a tip from one web designer to another - the "crazies" you talk 
about represent over half of the visitors to sarahslean.com (which will be 
a lot of the same people you get to your site, I'm sure!) - 51% are at 
800x600, and 9% are at 640x480!  And people with higher resolutions rarely 
browse with their browsers maximized to the full screen.  So definitely 
design with lower resolutions in mind!


By the way, if anyone has any suggestions or concerns about the site that 
they'd like to make privately, you're more than welcome to email them to us 
at webmaster@sarahslean.com .

Steve

------------------------------

End of navy-soup-digest V4 #77
******************************