How Do I Embed Music............

07-01-2007, 1:20 PM

Andrew H. Carter <acarterchef@earthlink.net> wrote:

><analogy>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but generally a program written for
>Win3.1/Win 95/Win98/etc... can be read by each of it's successors with
>rare/some exceptions, but by and large it holds true: Win 98 can do
>Win 95 proggies, but can Win 3.1 do Win 95 proggies? Can Win 95 do Win
>987 proggies? Probably not.
></analogy>

You keep on trying to avoid the real issue here, embedding audio/video
via the <embed> tag or via _any_ other method is fundamentally flawed
and unnecessarily restricts the availability of content to a subset of
visitors.

Headless

07-01-2007, 1:20 PM

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 22:20:53 +0100, Headless <invalid_address@dna.ie>
wrote:

>You keep on trying to avoid the real issue here, embedding audio/video
>via the <embed> tag or via _any_ other method is fundamentally flawed
>and unnecessarily restricts the availability of content to a subset of
>visitors.
>

I get it, so the issue is to just provide a link so that they may
download the audio/video or not as embeding slows down the page from
loading.

And by continuation of that, the issue is to only use a browser that
does text only (Lynx, or turn off images) as the use of graphics and
colors takes away from the reading experience. But if we do that,
what do we do about the reading impaired? Sure we can use the tag
attribute that enables the text to be read:

<HEAD>
<STYLE TYPE=text/css MEDIA="All">
blah, blah, blah
</STYLE>
</HEAD>

And in order to not discriminate, all pages should be adjusted for
that, like all/most driveup ATM machines have Braille instructions.

So when we get down to it, you object to advertising: background WAVs,
MIDIs, SWFs. If you are like my brother you also probably turn
down/mute the volume on a TV when a commercial comes on. Don't you
just hate it when a tune sticks in your head and you can't get rid of
it?

Sincerely,

Andrew H. Carter

07-01-2007, 1:21 PM

In article <869cfv8mqu7a5e7o2db277285hp2o14uj0@4ax.com>,
acarterchef@earthlink.net says...

> And in order to not discriminate, all pages should be adjusted for
> that, like all/most driveup ATM machines have Braille instructions.

Albeit with a touch of sarcasm, I think you finally understand the
fundamentally flawed "Every page for every human" theory....
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

07-01-2007, 1:21 PM

On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 21:42:07 -0400, Whitecrest <whitecrest@zipzap.com>
wrote:

>In article <869cfv8mqu7a5e7o2db277285hp2o14uj0@4ax.com>,
>acarterchef@earthlink.net says...
>
>> And in order to not discriminate, all pages should be adjusted for
>> that, like all/most driveup ATM machines have Braille instructions.
>
>Albeit with a touch of sarcasm, I think you finally understand the
>fundamentally flawed "Every page for every human" theory....

Oh, I know that and have known that, but if you go with the basics,
HTML 1 (no coffee (Javascript), no artwork/windows/mirrors (frames))
and don't advance to 4, then you will reach the lion's share of the
audience. Give the users an option(s) basic or advanced, bi-plane or
SR-71 Blackbird, at the start page.

Sincerely,

Andrew H. Carter

07-01-2007, 1:22 PM

Andrew H. Carter <acarterchef@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>You keep on trying to avoid the real issue here, embedding audio/video
>>via the <embed> tag or via _any_ other method is fundamentally flawed
>>and unnecessarily restricts the availability of content to a subset of
>>visitors.
>
>I get it, so the issue is to just provide a link

Indeed. Hyperlinking is not limited to text links, provide a graphically
rich interface if you want.

>so that they may download the audio/video

Or use redirector files to stream (preferably with an option to
download).

>or not as embeding slows down the page from loading.

You were told about more serious problems, ignoring that doesn't make it
go away.

>And by continuation of that, the issue is to only use a browser that
>does text only (Lynx, or turn off images) as the use of graphics and
>colors takes away from the reading experience. But if we do that,
>what do we do about the reading impaired? Sure we can use the tag
>attribute that enables the text to be read:
>
><HEAD>
><STYLE TYPE=text/css MEDIA="All">
>blah, blah, blah
></STYLE>
></HEAD>
>
>And in order to not discriminate, all pages should be adjusted for
>that, like all/most driveup ATM machines have Braille instructions.

Turning to ridicule does not obscure the fact that you've failed to
provide a single argument in favor of embedding or a single argument
against linking.

Headless

07-01-2007, 1:22 PM

Andrew H. Carter wrote:

> but if you go with the basics,
> HTML 1 (no coffee (Javascript), no artwork/windows/mirrors (frames))
> and don't advance to 4, then you will reach the lion's share of the
> audience.

Advancing to HTML 4 or XHTML does no lose any of the "lion's share of the
audience". Neither does adding artwork.

> Give the users an option(s) basic or advanced, bi-plane or
> SR-71 Blackbird, at the start page.

Providing two websites where one will do does not make economic sense. When
things get tight, guess which version loses out?

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

07-01-2007, 1:23 PM

In article <0c8dfvcto1tskhb4i35i11n1k5vjmdo72c@4ax.com>,
invalid_address@dna.ie says...
> Turning to ridicule does not obscure the fact that you've failed to
> provide a single argument in favor of embedding or a single argument
> against linking.

You are absolutely right. If you want to reach the absolute largest
possible number of people you can, no matter what they use to see your
page and your content, (not taking into consideration if they would even
buy the product or not), then you can not not embed, you must publish in
some generic format, and can not ever use any JavaScript, or flash for
anything essential. I completely agree with that, and have never said
anything to the contrary (hmmm... never say never?)

But, if a page like that doesn't work with your target audience, (the
ones that will buy your product) then you need to consider using the
tools that will work. And you need to design the page in a way that
turns them on, works with them, and makes them buy (this includes
branding). If that takes Flash, embedded video, dhtml menus, then that
is what you need to use. If my customers tend to like flash, then they
will get flash. Because if I don't give it to them, then they will go
to my competitors who has flash.
<sarcasm>
But I will be happy that my page could be seen by every single person on
the web (if they wanted to see it) as I go out of business. </sarcasm>

Since we disagree on this basic premise, we will both go on our ways,
game fully employed and happy in our own knowledge of what the other
does not understand....

I am not arguing with you, I am only stating another way of thinking.
And an opinion (your's mine, or anyone else's) can never be wrong.

--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com

07-01-2007, 1:23 PM

On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:17:44 +0000, Isofarro
<spamblock@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:

>Advancing to HTML 4 or XHTML does no lose any of the "lion's share of the
>audience". Neither does adding artwork.
>

True, provided that everybody chooses to upgrade. But inreality, not
everybody chooses to upgrade, or they do so on a different time
schedule.

>
>> Give the users an option(s) basic or advanced, bi-plane or
>> SR-71 Blackbird, at the start page.
>
>Providing two websites where one will do does not make economic sense. When
>things get tight, guess which version loses out?

I have one website, located at http://home.earthlink.net/~acarterchef,
but have two different versions of it, through the use of text/HTML
pages sharing the same images. The big "waste of space" are audio and
graphic files. text files are rather small in comparison.

Sincerely,

Andrew H. Carter

07-01-2007, 1:25 PM

Andrew H. Carter wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:17:44 +0000, Isofarro
> <spamblock@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Advancing to HTML 4 or XHTML does no lose any of the "lion's share of the
>>audience". Neither does adding artwork.
>>
>
> True, provided that everybody chooses to upgrade.

Nobody needs to upgrade.

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

07-01-2007, 1:25 PM

Whitecrest wrote:

> If you want to reach the absolute largest
> possible number of people you can, no matter what they use to see your
> page and your content, (not taking into consideration if they would even
> buy the product or not), then you can not not embed, you must publish in
> some generic format, and can not ever use any JavaScript, or flash for
> anything essential. I completely agree with that,

No surprise there, considering its the most discredited myth against
accessibility.

--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
do u prefer music or no music?	Tim.T	Console Subjects	13	06-26-2007 12:25 PM
New Music	Darryl Ray	Car audio	0	06-18-2007 11:40 AM
Music & Design	woom	Graphics in general	0	06-11-2007 11:44 PM
Music on website	Minxy	HTML	4	03-23-2006 1:14 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)