NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: nnsquad Digest, Vol 3, Issue 10
Happy I-Day! Or should we call it O-Day? Anyway, as for Net video, there are contradictory forces in play. A whole bunch of them. On one hand, it's generally clear that when it comes to reaching people who are either not predisposed to a particular point of view, or even are actively hostile, you've got a better chance of getting their attention with some forms of video than trying to get them to plow through texts. Of course, the hope is that once they're interested they'll want to read more detailed materials. But in reality, there is often no clear line of demarcation between "entertainment" and "documentation/teaching" types of videos. Just ask the folks at "60 Minutes" -- or the producers of programs like "Sesame Street" -- or some of the great shows that air on the History or Science Channels, or the producers of PBS Nova for WGBH. The list is endless. These shows are entertainment and information/documentaries/ teaching -- by design. YouTube videos (and Net video in general) have the same capabilities, plus they represent a much more egalitarian distribution mechanism. There are various complaints about having to frequently update video players, or using javascript or flash, or whatever. These concerns are often from people who complain that Net video isn't "seamless" like commercial TV. But one of the key benefits of flash and javascript-based players is that they simplify keeping the players current, and part of the reason that there are so many changes is the constant march toward trying to provide that seamless experience as the underlying Net video technology and video standards rapidly evolve. And as a side-note, I believe that people who simply refuse to ever run javascript or flash -- in their current forms -- due to perceived security concerns, are overreacting these days. I run them both, and I certainly don't ignore security! Then there's the people who don't really care about any of these technical issues. Their argument is, "All video is crap, I've never owned a TV, I never watch TV, there's never anything worth watching on TV," etc. Judging from such sweeping declarations, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these folks also object to ball point pens and flush toilets. Internet/Web-based video will have an increasingly major role to play in all aspects of information dissemination. Get used to it. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - On 01/20 07:41, Craig A. Finseth wrote: > Following Lauren's post on YouTube as a research tool, think of "video as > the new text." For instance, the operating instructions for my Uverse system > including not just a tiny paper pamphlet, but a series of "on-demand" videos > walking the viewer through how to use features of the system. > > Deity, I hope not. Unfortunately, I think you're right. > > I object to the proliferation of video for two reasons. > > First - and this one will go away with time - it's a pain to keep all > of my browsers current with the latest video players. I have six > different computers - some with multiple browsers - that I use on a > daily or near daily basis. I have better things to do with my time > than keep dealing with "you need to upgrade to the latest version of > ..." problem. > > Second, my time is valuable. If you give me something in text, I can > glance at it and determine whether it is important, or quickly locate > the relevant part. If you give me a five minute video, it takes on > the average of 2.5 minutes to come across the part that I care about. > And, while the whole of the video may be of immense importance to its > creator, I couldn't care less about the video as a video: I only care > about it because it is between me and what I need to know to do > something else. > > Of course, this does't apply to entertainment videos, but this thread > is dicussing video as documentation/teaching. > > Craig