Main Page

[jujimufu]

@BKhon: fantastic - this is the place to share them!

@KGill: I agree with Feldmahler that we shouldn't remove the copyright notice just to be on the safe side. As the text is quite short, we could just put it in a little box under the recent recordings additions list, or something. Not sure I understand your laying-out of the main page with the capitals and font-sizes - what do you mean exactly?

I agree with you with regards to the confusion about IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library. I personally still refer to it as IMSLP, and as the URL is also imslp.org (I know petruccimusiclibrary.org exists - but I think it's too long and difficult to remember, plus it simply redirects me to imslp.org..)

@imslp: I was also thinking about the portal: should we change the portal into a language portal? It makes a lot more sense to choose language in the very first instance of the site, and then have three big links in the main page, namely "library" (or "browse"), "forums", "journal" (or similar), and then have some recent additions and FS on the right, some information about IMSLP on the left, a "did you know" blurp somewhere on the right too, and the copyright stuff on the bottom?

With regards to the Recent Additions, would it be possible (just out of curiosity) to have one list of "recent additions", which would include both recordings and scores, and we could differentiate between the two with a little icon to the left (instead of a list dot)?

With regards to the category walker, I have personally never used it successfully. It always ends up being too complicated/going through too many pages/user un-friendly, that I just give up. I still don't really know how it works, and I feel there is too much technical jargon in there. Would it be possible to a) make a special help page for the category walker which explains a) in brief, and b) in detail how to use the category walker, with actual examples? What kind of things would people be looking for through the category walker? How would they find them? Would it also be possible to simplify the layout and terminology used? In simple words for the average visitor, what's the difference between "[browse]" and "Adagios" in "[browse] Adagios"? Why do we need a different link for every combination of "X instruments with harpsichord" - can't we have two links: "Works for harpsichord" and "Works with harpsichord", and under "works with harpsichord" we could have "for 1 instrument with harpsichord", "for 2 instruments with harpsichord", "for 3 instruments with harpsichord" etc. That will make the Genre page look a lot less cluttered, I think.

I don't want to get into a category walker debate here, but I would also like to point out that I am not satisfied with the Work Types: a "duet" is simply a work for two instruments, a "vivace" is simply a description which refers to the tempo of the piece, while a "partita" refers to a group of pieces, and a "fugue" refers to a particular form. An "aria" refers to a movement from an operatic work, and "writings" is a whole new category which does not refer to music pieces themselves. Why all these descriptions of vastly different elements of any given work should appear under a common label, I don't understand, and it only leads to further confusion, when trying to find something in particular.

[Davydov]

OK, first you need to know that each work is classified according to (1) Work type, and (2) Instrumentation. Works involving text are also classified by language, so people can search for vocal works or writings in English, German, Finnish, etc.

The list of work types is derived from the classification system used by the Music Library Association, and are used in library cataloging of classical music. Some of these are based on tempo markings (Allegros, Andantes), while others are musical forms (Symphonies, Concertos), or stage genres (Comic operas, Incidental music). The rule is that we use the composers' own descriptions of their works, either from the main title or a subtitle. You should be prepared, as we have been, to have many of your basic assumptions challenged: so arias are often unrelated to operas, partitas don't always come in groups of pieces, and duets don't have to be for just 2 players Life, or at least classical music, is much more complicated than that, and the work types reflect this diversity.

The instrumental classification system allows people to search for works involving specific numbers of players or voices/instrumental ensembles, as well as by solo instruments. To follow up your particular example, from the main Browse by Genre page, scroll down to "Scores featuring the harpsichord". Clicking on that link would display an alphabetical list of all compositions where a solo harpsichord part is included. But as there are so many of them (423 in fact), you might want instead to follow the adjacent "browse" link, where these are broken down into smaller categories, and you can see at a glance which instruments are used in addition to the harpsichord in a particular piece, as well as their work type.

Refinements are still being made to the category walker, which is why the documentation is limited at the moment, and I suspect it may not be until the remaining 10% of works have been tagged that you'll see the system working at its finest...

[imslp]

First, I wanted to thank Jujimufu for that very helpful critique of the Category Walker. I think it is absolutely crucial that those of us who are very familiar with the workings of the Category Walker be attentive to the viewpoints of someone who is not as familiar with the CW. Ultimately, the users of the CW will be normal people, and not CW-geeks like us.

And I also want to thank Davydov for working so hard on the CW, and making it so useful. I think the missing link here is the connection between what us CW-geeks think the CW can do, and what normal users think the CW can do. As I mentioned in my blog post (and in the Journal forum specifically), I think the first step is to have a easy-to-understand manual, with pictures and examples, of the CW. The second step would be to redesign the CW to be less scary to begin with, and more intuitive (or as intuitive as it can get). We should of course take into account the feedback we get from IMSLP users like Jujimufu in doing all of this.

Which circles me back to my original point about site design. I think that one of the things IMSLP lacks is a simple and intuitive site design. This is a pity, because it does not take that much to make IMSLP pretty: for example, one just have to design the most accessed pages (Main Page, and maybe a few others) and the file/work/composer page templates (i.e. the #FTE templates).

@Jujimufu: Because IMSLP selects the language automatically, perhaps selecting language on the portal page is unnecessary. That said, one of the things I was thinking about is to replace the portal page altogether with the wiki Main Page. But if you want the portal page and have another idea for it, just send me the static HTML (unfortunately the Portal Page is not linked to the wiki, and therefore cannot use any of the wiki functions).

I would prefer not to merge the recent additions lists because then the scores would flood out the recordings. However, if you want to change the design of the recent additions list (and to include the performers name for the Recordings list), simply send me a mockup HTML of the list. (I would encourage you to find a way to include performer names for the Recordings list in any event...)

Also, I think the CW discussion is extremely helpful, but perhaps should be done separately from the design issue for now, because there are so many things involved in that issue. I would focus on designing wiki pages and wiki templates (i.e. the #fte: templates I mentioned above). The guiding principle is simplicity and intuitiveness (and lots of graphics if it would make things simple ). As I mentioned several times, do feel free to try it out without getting my or anyone else's permission, since I trust you with the design already.

@BKhon: Please either post your ideas here, or try them out on the main page. If they are huge changes, perhaps you can try them out on a test page, and tell Jujimufu to merge it into the main page.

[BKhon]

Sorry, I haven't had much time to post anything until now. As a site designer (even though I use ruby), I have a few visual critiques. I would be happy to implement them myself, but not without some criticism. What I am about to say is simple and obvious, but often overlooked:

[*] There is definitely a lot of content on the IMSLP! I think some basic content organization would go a long way. To me (and other users), to main page feels overly cluttered. That point was, of course, already discussed.

[*] I think that it could benefit from designing the Header, Content, Sidebar and Footer to be more rigid. The spacing feels disjointed now. What about thinking in terms of 960(px) and deciding upon a column structure?

[*] When I design, I usually start by drawing a simple framework of all page material to figure out how much room is needed for each piece. In the case of IMSLP, there's Browse, News, Featured, and Recent Additions (Scores/Recordings).

[*] The header should be 100% wide and not allow the About copy (Welcome...) to push down the main content.

Seeing the 4 Basic sections listed above, we could allow the main content to be in a table of two rows and 2 columns (480x480); or, have the Browse be 100% wide and place 3 columns (320x320x320) below.

[*] Then the footer is 100% and holds the Contributing and Copyright text.

As I often tell the people for which I design: remember to keep it SIMPLE. Just a frame work. Then add details as (we) see them necessary. Better to have usable information than too much pomp.

Because IMSLP selects the language automatically, perhaps selecting language on the portal page is unnecessary. That said, one of the things I was thinking about is to replace the portal page altogether with the wiki Main Page. But if you want the portal page and have another idea for it, just send me the static HTML (unfortunately the Portal Page is not linked to the wiki, and therefore cannot use any of the wiki functions).

I don't think replacing the portal page with the main page is a good idea.

Out of time (I'm very busy lately, but will have time on Friday/Saturday to make any changes), but please post more ideas.

Some Minor Points

1). The statistics should be put on another page.
2). We may want to change "Free Public Domain Music Library" to "Free Music Library", since a lot our scores now are released under creative commons licenses.
3). We should consider changing the motto anyway. It was suggested on my talk page that it be changed to "Standardization is Always Fun"
4). The second paragraph on the "welcome" should be abolished, and first paragraph could use (perhaps) a link to the "how to contribute" page.
5). The news (and the likes) should be reduced to 3-5 entires. Preferably 4.
6). I like the fun-fact idea I'm sure it could be implemented somewhere. I'd be more than willing to be in charge of that (and update it). I don't see any reason against it... there are thousands of facts, so we won't fun out.

[KGill]

@jujimufu: Just to interject, critiques of the CW should probably continue here, so that this thread doesn't derail too severely.

[steltz]

Two statistics I would not like to see disappear from the main page is the number of scores and composers. I like to see how it's growing, I think it's a great advertisement, and I can't see myself taking the time to click to go somewhere else to look at it. Surely that can stay?

[BKhon]

Two statistics I would not like to see disappear from the main page is the number of scores and composers. I like to see how it's growing, I think it's a great advertisement, and I can't see myself taking the time to click to go somewhere else to look at it. Surely that can stay?

Upon reflection of what I wrote, I agree that the statistics should stay. In fact, I would like to see all five statistics (especially since our collection of recordings is growing). What bothers me most is the design and the language section. Perhaps they could be split and made to look better. The current placement (to me) looks disjointed.

Note: One other thing that bothers me is that the introductory paragraph obscures the picture. Sorry if my previous post sounded arragant, but I think the main problem is simple organization. Perhaps over the weekend I can develop a new design and post it via forums (and the current site designer, and everyone, can change/reject whatever they want).

[imslp]

First, I don't think what you said last post was arrogant.

I would also strongly suggest that you try your suggestions on a test page if possible. You don't even have to do everything at once; you can simply duplicate the Main Page and change things around on the test page.

[BKhon]

I'm currently working on implementing a custom style sheet (CSS). Setting a new CSS link in the head:

<head>
<link href="/EXAMPLE.css" media="screen" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" />
</head>
<body>
PUT HTML HERE
</body>

What I want to do is basically implement a 2 row 2 column structure (480x480) that fits (and aligns) the Browse, News, Featured, and Recent Additions (Scores/Recordings). I think this would look best. Also I will be making the header 100% wide and not allow the About copy (Welcome...) to push down the main content, which is another problem from which the site suffers. Lastly I will simply implement a footer is 100% and holds the Copyright text. As for the contributing text, I've moved it to a link in the first paragraph of "about". Could I possibly have the CSS files?

If there are any objections or comments/concerns, please do say so.

[KGill]

They're all on the site...you already have them. http://imslp.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.css

[BKhon]

Right... Well, I'll get to it and try to finish by Sunday evening.

[BKhon]

I know I promised it to be finished by this evening, but this might be delayed.

Out of laziness (sort of) I tried to use a table to make everything line up nicely, and it looked hideous on certain browsers. How it looked also depended upon the size of someone's computer. If I would have implemented it, it would have caused an uproar. Especially if you use safari (I don't know why, though). That being said, I'll take the less lazy approach and actually format the page according to my description.

[NLewis]

Tables generally tend to fail . So long as you didn't put food on it

1). The statistics should be put on another page.
2). We may want to change "Free Public Domain Music Library" to "Free Music Library", since a lot our scores now are released under creative commons licenses.
3). We should consider changing the motto anyway. It was suggested on my talk page that it be changed to "Standardization is Always Fun"
4). The second paragraph on the "welcome" should be abolished, and first paragraph could use (perhaps) a link to the "how to contribute" page.
5). The news (and the likes) should be reduced to 3-5 entires. Preferably 4.
6). I like the fun-fact idea I'm sure it could be implemented somewhere. I'd be more than willing to be in charge of that (and update it). I don't see any reason against it... there are thousands of facts, so we won't fun out.

1). I think the statstics are fine. In reality, I think it's the awkward placement that is the problem.
2). But that would ruin the dream of IMSLP (!). IMSLP was born with the dream to make that which is in the public domain free. Even though we do release things under creative commons licences, I don't think it's necessary to change it.
3). Davydov suggested that one
4). I've just fixed that. Point abolished (!)
5). Sure, I don't have any immediate repudiations.
6). If we do "fun" out of facts, we can replace them with jokes.