embed tag

[Luc]

I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as the
music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start another
elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as
the music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start
another elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?

Probably doesn't matter, because I (and many others) will be gone from
your site in seconds, as soon as you interrupted the jazz I was playing
on my computer.

Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
link.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag.

Probalby a bad idea, but it is your site...

But as soon as the
music file ends it start over again.

Damn them! Damn them to hell!!!

The idea would be to start another
elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?

It isn't. Use Flash or java to do something like you want. And then
only after you ask it is it ok to play music.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Luc quothed:

I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as the
music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start another
elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?

I agree with Beauregard, despite his name. Audio should be optional,
not forced on a user. Also, when I surf, I do it with sound off. If
the site is "mysteriously" slow, I leave. If the site comes to a halt
to load some unannounced Flash giz, I leave.

 

[Stan McCann]

I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon
as the music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to
start another elevator music song and not the same. How is this done
guys?

Easy, link each music file and list as a menu. As soon as a music file
ends, the user then can select another.

OTOH, if you insist in playing music without any choice on my part,
adios, I'll find another site to look (and not listen to) at.

 

[dorayme]

I am using elevator music on our site in an embed tag. But as soon as the
music file ends it start over again. The idea would be to start another
elevator music song and not the same. How is this done guys?

I suppose old Spartanicus would not mind if I suggest you look
at http://www.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie/embed.htm for a start.

I would imagine that if you really wanted to have continuous
elevator music, you would need to prepare it as one long file
and then include it. Yes, embedding is definitely the way to go
with such music, for maximum realism (as with real elevators
where you can't easily escape!

You can also use parameters like Loop but I am rusty on this
though have used this myself once or twice for fun.

Midi files are probably best because impressively small.

dorayme

 

[dorayme]

Music, or any sounds, on a web site should be optional via a clickable
link.

Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
stage.

As we have been lucky enough to learn from Luigi, freedom is
very important. But it is not overwhelmingly so in all
circumstances.

You have been given an argument here. Try to appreciate it
before making any fundamentalist reply...

dorayme

 

[Greg N.]

Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far
as you can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist
view expressed by you here would exclude a lot of things that
could be a lot of fun, the fun being ruined if one has the
choice... It is nice to be helplessly surprised by some things.
One does not need to be so in control of every thing at every
stage.

Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
things.

I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may like
it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of visitors.

The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might be
offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without giving them
a choice. I think the answer is no.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Not true. In general, yes, it should be optional. That's as far as you
can go without saying false things. The fundamentalist view expressed
by you here would exclude a lot of things that could be a lot of fun,
the fun being ruined if one has the choice... It is nice to be
helplessly surprised by some things. One does not need to be so in
control of every thing at every stage.

As we have been lucky enough to learn from Luigi, freedom is very
important. But it is not overwhelmingly so in all circumstances.

You have been given an argument here. Try to appreciate it before
making any fundamentalist reply...

Nope, I'm not going to argue. Music should be optional, the choice of
the visitor.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
things.

Trying to please "potential visitors" is meaningless. EVERYONE is a
potential visitor, but not everyone is a "likely" visitor. So (IMOHO)
making sure that EVERYONE is happy is a waste of time. One's efforts
would be much better spent understanding what the likely visitors want.

Mind you, there are no absolutes on the web, and what makes a site work
is unique to that site. My standard reference is that google would not
be as popular if it relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for
cartoon network's site.

 

[dorayme]

Not true. Thoise "things that could be a lot of fun... It is nice to be
helplessly surprised ..." could be fun or nice for some, but not all
potential visitors - That's as far as *you* can go without saying false
things.

I would say that uncontrollable acoustic content, though some may like
it in some cases, *will*, without any doubt, annoy a percentage of visitors.

The question remains, should a civilized person do things that might be
offensive to a part (however small) of the audience, without giving them
a choice. I think the answer is no.

OK Greg N...

What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
got /everything/ wrong!

In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
exhibited about being intruded upon), it is important that some
sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
website! It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
to be a nice surprise on anyone. That it is not nice for all is
one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
this price in a moment.

Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.

About civilization old chap... this is quite wrong. If you had
your way, no one would be able to do anything publicly because
it would offend some people. This is, to put it bluntly, stuff
and nonsense. I hate to do this because some naturally cynical
minds will think that somehow I am trying to push my views on
other matters but you do not have to read it all: there is quite
a reasonable explanation about the balance in these matters of
the limits of freedom in my
http://dorayme.150m.com/opinionFolder/drugLaws.html Perhaps you
can look at the first quarter and adapt the sort of reasoning to
this. And then go read Mill for more.

I imagine that if you (in your present mood) ever become king,
you would ban anyone in a public street from playing a guitar
because it is annoying to some! I say this: I would ban it if
people had no chioice but to listen, as outside a private house.
Now, this is about the price, unlike the private house, one can
be rid of an unwanted website at the click of a mouse. So the
price is not as dramatic as you make out.

dorayme

(Would people please refrain from contradicting me unnecessarily
as it causes me to get severe RSIin my tendons from replying at
length.)

 

[dorayme]

Nope, I'm not going to argue. Music should be optional, the choice of
the visitor.

Ah, Beauregard! But you did not take the other instruction on
board, namely to appreciate the argument before giving a
fundamentalist reply...

dorayme

 

[TJ]

OK Greg N...

What exactly out of my paragraph, in which I said a number of
things, is not true? Were they all wrong? I'd be shocked to have
got /everything/ wrong!

Why? I get everything wrong on a consistant basis. I can give you the
wife's email addy if ya don't believe me.

In order for it to be nice for some (like those of us without
this old fuddy-duddy, precious, hoity-toity attitude commonly
exhibited about being intruded upon),

Or the poor souls without mute buttons on their keyboards ...

it is important that some
sounds and images be part of an unannounced package of a
website!

Whoops! Images I don't mind, but we have a problem if you're gonna try to
force sound on me. Ya lost me there. I wanna hear what *I* am listening
to, not what *you* want me to listen to. Ordinarily I disagree with the
poop-sticks that frequent this group, but in *this* case, they are right.
You shouldn't "force" sound on a visitor, but feel free to make it an
option.

It has to be embedded or forced played in order for it
to be a nice surprise on anyone.

I don't like *that* kind of surprise. See above.

That it is not nice for all is
one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
this price in a moment.

No offense, but English isn't your first language, is it?

Basically, our little dispute here boils down to this: We both
generally agree: Do not embed! You go further and say it is
never worth it. I say it is sometimes worth it.

You're wrong. I (like a majority of people) surf around while listening to
music *I* like. I have no interest in having your website garble it up with
what *you* like. Get it?

<snip pontification>

 

[dorayme]

No offense, but English isn't your first language, is it?

You are right, my first language is Martian. But I want to
improve. Help me out here Mr.
English-Speaker-as-a-First-Language-Man. Tell me how you found
out about me from the sentence "That it is not nice for all is
one thing. Yes, this is the price. I will come to the nature of
this price in a moment"?

I am wrong to say that you do not think it worth it? OK, you do
think it worth it. In other words we agree. So what are we
arguing about?

I (like a majority of people) surf around while listening to
music *I* like.

Where do you get your data on this from, your school friends
perhaps? My observation is that a great many if not most adults
have no music at all.

I have no interest in having your website garble it up with
what *you* like. Get it?

This is a simple enough point, why would I not get it? You mean
that you do not like to be intruded upon, you poor precious
thing...

I like to be surprised, so I hope some people judiciously
embed things now and again to surprise me. Get it?

dorayme

(...who, btw, does not "surf the net" - down under we have
beautiful oceans to do the real thing...)

 

[Toby Inkster]

My standard reference is that google would not be as popular if it
relied on Flash, and the opposite is true for cartoon network's site.

I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's site do not
care about what technology is used to create the effect. They would be
equally happy if the same effect was implemented via lots of Javascript
and images instead of Flash.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I suspect that most of the visitors to the Cartoon Network's
site do not care about what technology is used to create the
effect. They would be equally happy if the same effect was
implemented via lots of Javascript and images instead of Flash.

Even so, it still agrees with my point. They want the animation and
the fun and excitement that it brings. THAT is what adds to the
site. Adding the same thing to google would not bring the same
enthusiasm.

So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
for each site.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

Even so, it still agrees with my point. They want the animation and
the fun and excitement that it brings. THAT is what adds to the
site. Adding the same thing to google would not bring the same
enthusiasm.

So my point still stands. What makes a sight "popular" is different
for each site.

And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

 

[Travis Newbury]

And as for the porn sites, Vive la Difference!

We agree!!

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

We agree!!

Actually, I only visit porn sites to peruse the articles.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Actually, I only visit porn sites to peruse the articles.

Not me. I there for the porn