A new version of the Mutopia web site is now uploaded to a slightly different
temporary location:
http://members.xoom.com/chrissawer/mutopia
I have taken into account the various opinions that have been voiced, but there
is still quite a lot to do before it can be considered for general view.
On 31-May-99 John Yesberg wrote:
> 1. Not all music will be piano score. Consider string quartets, choral, and
> solo instruments. It may not be possible to give a useful preview in the
> smallish box you have proposed on your prototype page.
I hadn't thought of this - I'll redo the graphical page this week, with a
slightly wider preview window but one that can be extended to any height to
accomodate multiple staffs (I'll put all the buttons underneath it). This image
can also be linked to from the text page (more about this later) as a preview.
> 2. I don't see any value in the highly graphical nature of the information. It
> takes longer to download, and takes up more space on the screen, without
> (IMHO) adding much value. Perhaps you could have a text listing, with a
> hyperlinked "preview" graphic. That would probably suit me more.
I've now added a text page to the site for people like you who prefer a lower
bandwith site. I will add links to preview graphics when I've revamped the
graphical page as I said above. I personally don't like the way this page looks
in either Netscape or Lynx, so I'll probably change it before long. It uses
tables to layout the information, which Lynx doesn't support but I've put in
special <p>, space and various other bits especially for Lynx users (like
Murray Adelman) so it looks reasonable in this browser.
> It may also facilitate using a browser's search capability (eg. Search for
> "Beethoven" in this page).
Possibly. Although this should become unnecessary when I add search / sort
facilities to the site.
> 3. The descriptor "classical" means different things to different people.
> Your two examples are probably both classical and Classical. I'm doubt that
> this will really cause much confusion to the target market, but maybe a
> date (either of composition or composer's birth) could reduce ambiguity.
I've thought quite hard about this and have decided to keep the "Music style"
section in (Rennaisance/Classical etc.) as going simply by date could also be
confusing - especially the music of the early 20th Century, eg. Joplin and
Szymanowski were writing at about the same time, and their styles could not be
more different! (Szymanowski hasn't gone out of copyright yet, though).
> 4. Is there any sort of aim to make a high quality catalog, such as one finds
> in a (decent) library? If so, it might be useful to consider database
> schema at this early stage, before there is too much "re-work" required.
The aim is that someone can sort without entering any search criteria, in which
case they'd get a complete catalogue. This will be possible when I've written
the appropriate "cgi" scripts, hopefully alphabetically by composer, piece
title and chronologically by date of composer's birth and death. I'm working on
the scripts at the moment but they will take a little while to progress to a
useable state.
> For example, do you want to store Opus and Number fields,
Good point. I'll make it sortable by Opus (where appropriate) as well.
> have consistent spellings of Tchaikowsky and Chaikovsky, etc.
I hadn't thought of this. We'd have to standardize on the modern accepted
spellings (is there such a thing?) and have a special page that comes up if
someone searches using one of the other spellings.
> 5. Maybe your page should include a link to the lilypond site!
It does now.
Thanks for your comments, they've all been really helpful. The more people
comment about the site the better it will be!
Chris
--
Chris Sawer - Sussex, England - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
