Stylesheets - CSS frames

Author

CSS frames

Darrell

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

I have a client, a musician, who wishes to include a media player in her
site. She wishes it to be present on all pages in the site.

Further, she wishes it to play whichever song has been selected
continuously, even when another page has been loaded.

The only way I can think to accomplish this is to use a frameset and
place the player in a frame.

I have investigated CSS frames. However, as far as I can tell they
merely simulate the appearance of a frame; but I expect that whenever a
new page loads, the player would still reload, and stop playing.

Is this correct? Or is there some CSS magic I could implement to prevent
a section of the page from reloading as though it were an actual frame?

I apologize if this is OT. I really don't know how else to go about
this; I'm not really familiar with using media players in websites and
am learning as I go.

Thanks in advance.

Ed Mullen

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Darrell wrote:
> I have a client, a musician, who wishes to include a media player in her
> site. She wishes it to be present on all pages in the site.
>
> Further, she wishes it to play whichever song has been selected
> continuously, even when another page has been loaded.
>
> The only way I can think to accomplish this is to use a frameset and
> place the player in a frame.
>
> I have investigated CSS frames. However, as far as I can tell they
> merely simulate the appearance of a frame; but I expect that whenever a
> new page loads, the player would still reload, and stop playing.
>
> Is this correct? Or is there some CSS magic I could implement to prevent
> a section of the page from reloading as though it were an actual frame?
>
> I apologize if this is OT. I really don't know how else to go about
> this; I'm not really familiar with using media players in websites and
> am learning as I go.
>
> Thanks in advance.

I guess I'll have to be the first to tell you:

1. Dissuade her from this desire:
a. it's pointless: the user can control his/her machine, your client can't
b. it's hugely annoying and, frankly, a rude way to treat
visitors/potential customers

2. Please tell me the site URL so that I make sure I never visit it

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Darrell wrote:

> I have a client, a musician, who wishes to include a media player in
> her site. She wishes it to be present on all pages in the site.

1. I'm already listening to some nice mellow jazz.

2. It's dead-quiet in my house and my wife is asleep in the next room.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Eric B. Bednarz

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Darrell <darrellg@sympatico.ca> writes:

(Crossposted fullquoted with followup-to c.i.w.a.html)

> I have a client, a musician, who wishes to include a media player in
> her site. She wishes it to be present on all pages in the site.
>
> Further, she wishes it to play whichever song has been selected
> continuously, even when another page has been loaded.
>
> The only way I can think to accomplish this is to use a frameset and
> place the player in a frame.
>
> I have investigated CSS frames. However, as far as I can tell they
> merely simulate the appearance of a frame; but I expect that whenever
> a new page loads, the player would still reload, and stop playing.
>
> Is this correct? Or is there some CSS magic I could implement to
> prevent a section of the page from reloading as though it were an
> actual frame?
>
> I apologize if this is OT. I really don't know how else to go about
> this; I'm not really familiar with using media players in websites and
> am learning as I go.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Whatever you can or should do, CSS has nothing to do with it.

The best and easiest solution is to simply link to the media object;
that brings up the configured media player (if any) for the MIME type
in question which then can happily doodle along in the back- or
foreground while the visitor is browsing the rest of the site.

Not only does this solve your initial problem (continuous playing across
stateless requests), if it doesn't work it's neither your fault nor
problem. As soon as you start trying to literally 'embed' a player in a
page, it is bound not to work in various scenarios and it *will* be your
fault (not even speaking about the secondary problems of using frames,
popups or whatnot in order to request a new resource with the
originating UA while the former remains active).

--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011

Eric B. Bednarz

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> writes:

> Darrell wrote:
>
>
> 1. I'm already listening to some nice mellow jazz.

I fail to see where auto- came into (-)play here, but that would be one
of the sparse pro arguments. :)

--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011

Alan J. Flavell

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Ed Mullen wrote:

> Darrell wrote:

I guess Darrell didn't care for the answers on alt.html
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/al...98e26de5fe099fb
since Saturday.
[color=darkred]
> I guess I'll have to be the first to tell you:

Well, hardly "the first". alt.html had rambled off onto the topic of
bagpipes, but not before one contributor had remarked:

|| Go ahead, use frames. Everything else is wrong, anyway.
|| -Pathetically wrong.

which was maybe a bit strong, but I could sympathise with it.

Tony

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Darrell

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

Ed Mullen wrote:

> I guess I'll have to be the first to tell you:...

May I respectfully say that you're hardly the first to inform me of the
undesirability of including unsolicited audio in a website. I'm well
aware of it and have explained it to my client.

Nonetheless, it's what she wants, and is paying me, to do. I pray that
the day comes when I can afford to turn down business; until then I have
to take what I can get.

Darrell

2006-04-17, 6:53 pm

> I guess Darrell didn't care for the answers on alt.html
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/al...98e26de5fe099fb
> since Saturday.

No, I cared for them very much, particularly the lawnmower vs. bagpipes
joke.

I merely thought I'd investigate the possibilities of a CSS-related
solution. I apologize if I've violated your sensibilities in even the
slightest degree.

Darrell

2006-04-17, 10:49 pm

Tony wrote:

> Business rule #1: The client is NOT always right!

I heartily agree, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get what they pay
for. I've explained why I think what she wants is inappropriate and
counterproductive, but she still wants it done in this way. And I don't
have to put my name on it. When I'm a big success I can turn down work I
don't want to do.

<petulance class='childish'>If anybody wants to pay me not to do the
site what she's paying me to do it, I accept (it's not very much) -- my
landlord doesn't really give a turd who pays me.</petulance>

Ed Mullen

2006-04-17, 10:49 pm

Darrell wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>
> May I respectfully say that you're hardly the first to inform me of the
> undesirability of including unsolicited audio in a website. I'm well
> aware of it and have explained it to my client.

Yeah, too many newsgroups. I just didn't recognize the topic even
though I'd seen it elsewhere. It seemed "fresh."

>
> Nonetheless, it's what she wants, and is paying me, to do. I pray that
> the day comes when I can afford to turn down business; until then I have
> to take what I can get.

I'm a musician, among other things. I've been performing in public for
more years than I sometimes care to admit, and a variety of musical
genres. I've also enjoyed a career in marketing and strategic planning
for some multi-national companies. Yeah, it's an eclectic past but it's
relevant here.

I understand the desire of the musician to take advantage of the ability
of a Web site to play music. However, as a musician, I don't want to
/inflict/ my music on anyone. Trying to force site visitors to hear
music is not a good idea. It greatly irritates me when I visit a site,
having, perhaps, forgotten to turn down my speakers, and the blaring
sounds wake up my wife and scare me half to death. Hence, the music on
my site is available, but not forced on any visitor.

A performer must understand the venue and audience where he or she
performs. Relating, connecting, to the audience is key. Alienating
them is counterproductive.

I'm not sure how you can convince your client of the realities of the
situation and the ramifications of her choices. I'm happy to talk with
her about it. And, yes, I understand the realities you face as a
contractor who cannot simply walk away from income even if the product
is ill-conceived. Still, your client will be best served by trying to
educate her. Holler if you think I can help. If not, build it and take
her money. Just don't count on the results being successful. It's going
to irritate most visitors and make them click through to something else
very quickly.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Ed Mullen

2006-04-17, 10:49 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Darrell wrote:
>
>
> 1. I'm already listening to some nice mellow jazz.
>
> 2. It's dead-quiet in my house and my wife is asleep in the next room.
>

Nice! Exactly what drives me crazy about these enforced sound blasts on
Web sites. I've come near to heart attacks too many times when
"surprised" by hideously loud sounds on some site I've just happened
upon. And my wife is NOT amused at all.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Ed Mullen

2006-04-17, 10:49 pm

Darrell wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
>
> I heartily agree, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get what they pay
> for. I've explained why I think what she wants is inappropriate and
> counterproductive, but she still wants it done in this way. And I don't
> have to put my name on it. When I'm a big success I can turn down work I
> don't want to do.
>
> <petulance class='childish'>If anybody wants to pay me not to do the
> site what she's paying me to do it, I accept (it's not very much) -- my
> landlord doesn't really give a turd who pays me.</petulance>

Understand and agree. But! Maybe you should direct her to this
discussion. If she won't believe you ...

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

Schraalhans Keukenmeester

2006-04-18, 6:58 pm

Darrell wrote:
> Tony wrote:
>
>
>
> I heartily agree, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get what they pay
> for. I've explained why I think what she wants is inappropriate and
> counterproductive, but she still wants it done in this way. And I don't
> have to put my name on it. When I'm a big success I can turn down work I
> don't want to do.
>
> <petulance class='childish'>If anybody wants to pay me not to do the
> site what she's paying me to do it, I accept (it's not very much) -- my
> landlord doesn't really give a turd who pays me.</petulance>

If someone asks me to build something that apart from being not in
his/her best benefit is also highly likely to make ME look like an idiot
who cannot deliver on his promises I refuse. For all we know she may
like the idea of having a website built that does her tax return
automatically, takes care of her potted plants' watering needs and does
the dishes for her.

Or what if your client wanted to have you make a site with some
extremist jihad stuff, do you also say 'customer's always right?'

I think embedding the media player itself is asking for trouble. You
should be able to convince her there is no reliable way to guarantee the
player works on every browser/platform out there. In other words, you
should be able to hide behind "cannot be done!" without hurting truth
too much.

Don't sell out, even when the money is tempting. I will take on a lot,
even if I don believe in the product customer's selling, but I will
never abandon my own principles. It DOES reflect on you, and may hurt
your wallet in the future to boot. If someone wants crap, let them go
try dysfunctional-sites-'r'-us. She should be GLAD she has found a
person who thinks with her, not just keen to empty her pockets.

All above said, I feel for you. I know how easy it is to get caught in a
split, or maybe to even feel partly at fault for manoeuvering the
customer in the wrong direction. Good luck with that, the
salesman/advisory talents, part of your job to have these, will have to
be relied upon! Expectation management is KEY in service-oriented
business! That sometimes includes saying NO WAY!

GOOD LUCK!!!
Sh.

Tony

2006-04-18, 6:58 pm

Darrell wrote:
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>
>
> May I respectfully say that you're hardly the first to inform me of the
> undesirability of including unsolicited audio in a website. I'm well
> aware of it and have explained it to my client.
>
> Nonetheless, it's what she wants, and is paying me, to do. I pray that
> the day comes when I can afford to turn down business; until then I have
> to take what I can get.

The day will come when you decide that you will turn down business.

I know that's hard to understand, but I found the same thing.

When I was so desperate for business that I would do anything somebody
would pay me to do, I stayed poor. Understand - "I'll do whatever the
client pays me to do" is the mentality of a whore. It may be harsh, but
there is truth to it: As long as you are willing to do whatever someone
will pay you to do, you'll be treated that way.

When I decided that I was going to build sites RIGHT, I got more
business. Even though I turned people away - I had MORE work, and was
making more money for the same amount of work.

When you take a stand on a professional matter, people come to respect
you as a professional in your field. When you do whatever they pay you
to do, you're just a whore, and they'll treat you like one.

I know it's hard to do. I've been there. I'm a lot happier now.

axlq

2006-04-18, 10:43 pm

Now THAT is a quotable quote:

In article <124achupjing83d@corp.supernews.com>,
Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>When you take a stand on a professional matter, people come to
>respect you as a professional in your field. When you do whatever
>they pay you to do, you're just a whore, and they'll treat you like
>one.

I'll save this for the next time my management criticizes me for not
kowtowing to the "customer is always right" adage. The customer
isn't always right. The customer is simply the customer, and often
wrong. The GOOD customers are those who appreciate being educated
when they're wrong.

-A

Schraalhans Keukenmeester

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

axlq wrote:
> Now THAT is a quotable quote:
>
> In article <124achupjing83d@corp.supernews.com>,
> Tony <tony23@dslextreme.WHATISTHIS.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'll save this for the next time my management criticizes me for not
> kowtowing to the "customer is always right" adage. The customer
> isn't always right. The customer is simply the customer, and often
> wrong. The GOOD customers are those who appreciate being educated
> when they're wrong.
>
> -A
Add to that:

The good salesperson (which is also part of any service one delivers,
selling it to your customer, like it or not) knows how to manage
customer expectation, steer him/her in the right direction and is able
to tell the client he or she is deadwrong in some cases WITHOUT making
them feel belittled or plain stupid. For many ict-support staff I have
employed and/or worked with this proved the trickiest part of their
jobs, as they tend to think slightly binary. Agreed, it's not easy,
especially when the IT-department is often looked upon as 'a bunch of
nay-saying techie dorks crawling around in their wired dungeons hiding
from any contact.

Or, as my former (ex-politician and utterly British) director once put
it: You're good at your job if you are able to tell someone to go to
hell in such a way they are happy to be on their way.

Customer possibly can always get what he wants, just not always from you.

Darrell

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

> The day will come when you decide that you will turn down business.

That day will occur when somebody wishes me to work on a site whose
content I find objectionable. Not according to your standards, you
understand, which, with all respect, are of little consequence to me,
beyond their educational value. But then I already know it's a bad idea
to put a media player in a web site.

I do not consider this case to be a moral issue, as you and others here
seem to. As long as I'm satisfied that I've made my customer fully aware
of my concerns -- and I am -- I feel in no way ethically, morally, or
professionally compromised, and sleep just fine thanks.

> Understand - "I'll do whatever the client pays me to do" is the
> mentality of a whore.

Only to those incapable of distinguishing between a whore and somebody
who, in defiance of conventional wisdom, includes a media player in a
website. I marvel that this moral unsophistication could exist in one
much beyond middle adolescence.

A more mature description of a "whore" mentality might be:

"I'll do whatever the client pays me to do, and will swallow any moral
objections I might have...and, of course, anything else I'm given to
swallow."

More specifically to this case:

"I'll do whatever the client pays me to do, and although she's asking me
to do something which I believe will have unintended and negative
consequences, I'm not going to say anything to her about it in case she
gets someone else to do it. I'll just take her money and the hell with
her and her shitty website."

Understand - she is not producing or presenting images of children being
sodomized, nor is she offering resources to those who wish to meet
9-year-olds online.

She is not shilling for Big Tobacco, cheering the seal hunt, or
promoting logging in Clayoquot Sound. Nor is she attempting to incite
violence against Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, or deaf children; neither
is she selling dried black bear testicle powder or ivory.

No, she just wants to post some of her music, and, horrors, to include a
media player in her site, notwithstanding the moral judgment of members
of this newsgroup.

To me, the remarkable thing about all this is the intense _ideological_
opposition to any departure from accepted wisdom, and its distinctly
religious flavour.

When a seemingly intelligent person feels it's okay to call me a "whore"
for including a stupid little media player in a web site, I experience
the same head-swimming sensation as when I'm listening to a Jehovah's
Witness who simply cannot believe that other ideas exist, and who
understands with perfect clarity that I'm their moral inferior -- a
"whore," in this case.

Since my initial post, I've received three emails urging me, in tones
ranging from patronizing and angry to reverential and evangelical
(although, I'm happy to report, not disrespectful), to cease my
involvement with this site, lest I forfeit my honour and indeed my very
soul, as I might were I working on NAMBY's website, or Hamas'.

People who feel that the inclusion of a media player in a web site is
not just a bad idea but an immoral act are people who have stopped
thinking. If that statement makes you angry, good. Start using your
head. Moral certainty and critical thought can't exist in the same place.

> When you do whatever they pay you to do, you're just a whore,
> and they'll treat you like one.
> I know it's hard to do. I've been there. I'm a lot happier now.

I find comfort in the knowledge that a even high-class call girl like
you had to start out as a $10 crack kitten like me. Sort of gives me
hope, you know?

Schraalhans Keukenmeester

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

Darrell wrote:
>
>
> That day will occur when somebody wishes me to work on a site whose
> content I find objectionable. Not according to your standards, you
> understand, which, with all respect, are of little consequence to me,
> beyond their educational value. But then I already know it's a bad idea
> to put a media player in a web site.
>
> I do not consider this case to be a moral issue, as you and others here
> seem to. As long as I'm satisfied that I've made my customer fully aware
> of my concerns -- and I am -- I feel in no way ethically, morally, or
> professionally compromised, and sleep just fine thanks.
>
>
>
> Only to those incapable of distinguishing between a whore and somebody
> who, in defiance of conventional wisdom, includes a media player in a
> website. I marvel that this moral unsophistication could exist in one
> much beyond middle adolescence.
>
> A more mature description of a "whore" mentality might be:
>
> "I'll do whatever the client pays me to do, and will swallow any moral
> objections I might have...and, of course, anything else I'm given to
> swallow."
>
> More specifically to this case:
>
> "I'll do whatever the client pays me to do, and although she's asking me
> to do something which I believe will have unintended and negative
> consequences, I'm not going to say anything to her about it in case she
> gets someone else to do it. I'll just take her money and the hell with
> her and her shitty website."
>
> Understand - she is not producing or presenting images of children being
> sodomized, nor is she offering resources to those who wish to meet
> 9-year-olds online.
>
> She is not shilling for Big Tobacco, cheering the seal hunt, or
> promoting logging in Clayoquot Sound. Nor is she attempting to incite
> violence against Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, or deaf children; neither
> is she selling dried black bear testicle powder or ivory.
>
> No, she just wants to post some of her music, and, horrors, to include a
> media player in her site, notwithstanding the moral judgment of members
> of this newsgroup.
>
> To me, the remarkable thing about all this is the intense _ideological_
> opposition to any departure from accepted wisdom, and its distinctly
> religious flavour.
>
> When a seemingly intelligent person feels it's okay to call me a "whore"
> for including a stupid little media player in a web site, I experience
> the same head-swimming sensation as when I'm listening to a Jehovah's
> Witness who simply cannot believe that other ideas exist, and who
> understands with perfect clarity that I'm their moral inferior -- a
> "whore," in this case.
>
> Since my initial post, I've received three emails urging me, in tones
> ranging from patronizing and angry to reverential and evangelical
> (although, I'm happy to report, not disrespectful), to cease my
> involvement with this site, lest I forfeit my honour and indeed my very
> soul, as I might were I working on NAMBY's website, or Hamas'.
>
> People who feel that the inclusion of a media player in a web site is
> not just a bad idea but an immoral act are people who have stopped
> thinking. If that statement makes you angry, good. Start using your
> head. Moral certainty and critical thought can't exist in the same place.
>
>
>
> I find comfort in the knowledge that a even high-class call girl like
> you had to start out as a $10 crack kitten like me. Sort of gives me
> hope, you know?
Funny, you got told don't do it, not from any MORAL point of view, just
as being bad practice in another NG, stumble onto the stylesheets
corner, get the same advice, well motivated, some business perspective
thrown in on top, free of charge (admitted, not asked for) and you
manage to belittle your fellow ng users there and tell everyone you are
going to proceed as planned, and call us moralists.

(I cannot conclude other than that you mix up advise with moralistic
rants. Why, one wonders.)

Do you see the similarity with your customer's attitude ?
I start to wonder why you spent the time and effort formulating your
question in the first place.

Honestly, I and probably the majority here won't lose any sleep over you
pursuing whatever plans you may have. However, the tone you strike at
those who spent time to try and help you is not really gonna be looked
upon as an invite to help you out next time.

Really, I don't mean to offend you, and by all means, if you disagree
with other's opinions, follow your own instincts. If you insist on
including that media player, do so. But don't take a defensive stance
like you do here and expect help in the future, and don't expect getting
detailed help with your specific question. If I don't believe it's a
good thing (and you don't either!), I'm not gonna tell you how it's
done, assuming I have the answers.

That's it as far as I am concerned. End of story. Good luck.
Sh.

Spartanicus

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> wrote:

[fully quoted message text removed]

Please trim quotes down to the bare minimum.

--
Spartanicus

Tony

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

Darrell wrote:
>
> That day will occur when somebody wishes me to work on a site whose
> content I find objectionable. Not according to your standards, you
> understand, which, with all respect, are of little consequence to me,
> beyond their educational value. But then I already know it's a bad idea
> to put a media player in a web site.
>
> I do not consider this case to be a moral issue, as you and others here
> seem to.

I don't consider it a moral issue, either. I consider it a business
issue. When I stopped dealing with customers who had unreasonable
expectations, I found that I was getting more business, making more
money for the same amount of work, and having less stress about it.

> As long as I'm satisfied that I've made my customer fully aware
> of my concerns -- and I am -- I feel in no way ethically, morally, or
> professionally compromised, and sleep just fine thanks.

That's fine. And as long as there are web designers like you who will
fulfill the unreasonable expectations of unreasonable clients, I will
have someone to send my unreasonable clients to, while I continue to go
after the better clients, who don't make unreasonable demands and pay more.

>
> Only to those incapable of distinguishing between a whore and somebody
> who, in defiance of conventional wisdom, includes a media player in a
> website. I marvel that this moral unsophistication could exist in one
> much beyond middle adolescence.

I marvel that you decided that the use of the word "whore" made this
into a moral point. A "call girl" and a "whore" do the same job, but a
"call girl" gets paid a lot more, and has higher standards about WHAT
she'll do for the money. Keeping it on the same level: would you rather
be the "call girl" or the "whore"?

> "I'll do whatever the client pays me to do, and although she's asking me
> to do something which I believe will have unintended and negative
> consequences, I'm not going to say anything to her about it in case she
> gets someone else to do it. I'll just take her money and the hell with
> her and her shitty website."

The whore mentality.

> Understand - she is not producing or presenting images of children being
> sodomized, nor is she offering resources to those who wish to meet
> 9-year-olds online.

Irrelevant to the discussion. You're the one on the moral high-horse
here. Do you have a moral objection to the word "whore"?

> To me, the remarkable thing about all this is the intense _ideological_
> opposition to any departure from accepted wisdom, and its distinctly
> religious flavour.

In your mind.

> When a seemingly intelligent person feels it's okay to call me a "whore"

My my, so sensitive. Maybe, in some way, you FEEL like a whore, which is
why you're reacting so defensively?

> for including a stupid little media player in a web site, I experience
> the same head-swimming sensation as when I'm listening to a Jehovah's
> Witness who simply cannot believe that other ideas exist, and who
> understands with perfect clarity that I'm their moral inferior -- a
> "whore," in this case.

Please note that YOU are the one making moral judgements here, based on
the use of a word. *I* did not pass any moral judgement on a "whore" - I
was discussing the BUSINESS mindset that a whore has. Please see my
example above.

> People who feel that the inclusion of a media player in a web site is
> not just a bad idea but an immoral act are people who have stopped
> thinking. If that statement makes you angry, good. Start using your
> head. Moral certainty and critical thought can't exist in the same place.

Apparantly, as it is quite obvious you are not applying critical
thinking to what is being said here.

>
> I find comfort in the knowledge that a even high-class call girl like
> you had to start out as a $10 crack kitten like me. Sort of gives me
> hope, you know?

LOL

Dr John Stockton

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

JRS: In article <p4T0g.718$DR6.65767@news20.bellglobal.com>, dated Mon,
17 Apr 2006 16:42:13 remote, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring
..stylesheets, Darrell <darrellg@sympatico.ca> posted :

>I have a client, a musician, who wishes to include a media player in her
>site. She wishes it to be present on all pages in the site.
>
>Further, she wishes it to play whichever song has been selected
>continuously, even when another page has been loaded.

There's nothing wrong with a site owner wanting to do that, provided
that the actual playing is initiated, knowingly, by a positive user
action. Another action should be provided, on every page of the site,
to stop the playing.

You've not indicated who makes the selection : the site, or the visitor.

If it is the site, the visitor should know what will be played before
starting it (though there could be a "mystery" option for the user); if
it is the visitor, then there could be a "no song" selection.

Or ... is "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John Cage, both IIRC, copyright?

I don't know whether it's possible to play in that manner at all - but
it won't worry me because I keep my speakers switched off.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 IE 4 ©
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> JL/RC: FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.

Neredbojias

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

To further the education of mankind, Darrell <darrellg@sympatico.ca>
vouchsafed:

>
> That day will occur when somebody wishes me to work on a site whose
> content I find objectionable. Not according to your standards, you
> understand, which, with all respect, are of little consequence to me,
> beyond their educational value. But then I already know it's a bad idea
> to put a media player in a web site.
> ....<snip long tirade>
> I find comfort in the knowledge that a even high-class call girl like
> you had to start out as a $10 crack kitten like me. Sort of gives me
> hope, you know?

Bah, you let it "get to" you! Hardly a professional stance, is it?

I think I'll go make a form with a mailto action in a frames page...

--
Neredbojias
Infinity can have limits.

Sherm Pendley

2006-04-19, 6:44 pm

Darrell <darrellg@sympatico.ca> writes:

> I do not consider this case to be a moral issue, as you and others here
> seem to.

Disparaging others motives simply because you don't like their advice is
childish and petty.

What do you think is going to happen when your customer gets complaints
about her site? You think she'll come back to you and say "you were right?"
If so, dream on... She'll tell all her friends that you built her a broken
site. Delivering a well-built site isn't a moral issue, it's just good
business.

.... Long-winded "the big kids are being mean to me" whine deleted ...

Oh, I see. You don't want advice, you're just trolling. Bye then...

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

Schraalhans Keukenmeester

2006-04-19, 10:43 pm

Spartanicus wrote:
> Schraalhans Keukenmeester
> <firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> wrote:
>
> [fully quoted message text removed]
>
> Please trim quotes down to the bare minimum.
>
You're right. Mea culpa.

Neredbojias

2006-04-20, 3:42 am

To further the education of mankind, Schraalhans Keukenmeester
<firstnamedotlastname@_REMOVE_xs4all_REMOVE_.nl> vouchsafed:

> You're right.

Mais oui! Merci beaucoup.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

Felix Miata

2006-04-20, 7:25 pm

On 06/04/17 16:42 (GMT-0400) Darrell apparently typed:

> I have a client, a musician, who wishes to include a media player in her
> site. She wishes it to be present on all pages in the site.

> Further, she wishes it to play whichever song has been selected
> continuously, even when another page has been loaded.

Yet another reason ratifying my decision to not enable PC sound. Be that
as it may, some people use tabs for everything. If I was actually
looking for music, and found a page with several I'd want to hear, I'd
open each in a new tab right away, just like with Google results I want
to investigate. Assuming the PC & browser could even cope, I'd hate to
think of the sound resulting from 15 tabs all trying to play different
music at the same time.
--
"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but
rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth

Andy Dingley

2006-04-21, 7:13 pm

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:42:13 -0400, Darrell <darrellg@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>The only way I can think to accomplish this is to use a frameset and
>place the player in a frame.

Don't use frames. If you have to, stick it in a popup.