LWN.net Logo

Video forums for free software

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 10, 2008 17:33 UTC (Thu) by vmole (subscriber, #111)
Parent article: Video forums for free software

Am I the only one who views this tendency towards video and podcasting as a bad thing? What's wrong with text? I can read a *lot* faster than you can speak. I can follow links embedded in the text. Text tends to be edited to remove the "uhhs" and "hmmms" and other noise. Text is easier to skim to find the interesting bits. I simply don't have the time to sit and watch a bad video. Not to mention that a 10K of text translates to 30M (300M?) of video. What a waste.

A wish to those projects: please provide a transcript of your valuable words. Yes, it takes time, but when you've gone video-onlu (or audio-only), you've lost me. Maybe I'm the only one, but I'd guess not.


(Log in to post comments)

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 10, 2008 17:46 UTC (Thu) by graydon (subscriber, #5009) [Link]

I quite agree. What amazes me further is the habit of posting *forum-like conversations* via
exchanges of video streams on youtube. Not only is it absurdly wasteful -- what in the modern
world isn't? -- but it's much less convenient for both sender and recipient than text. Why
anyone bothers is beyond me.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 19:19 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

How is it absurdly wasteful?  Are you against phone conversations because they're vastly more
bandwidth-intensive than just mailing a letter?

Personally, I'm really happy to see new modes of communication cropping up organically.  It
gives me hope for the future.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 19:39 UTC (Fri) by graydon (subscriber, #5009) [Link]

"Against"? Well, hardly. As I said, the modern industrial condition is nothing if not a
massive party of waste. Almost everything we do recreationally, by volume, is voluntary waste.
What sense would it make to worry about wasted bits when we're drowning in wasted physical
goods?

Comparison between phones and letters is not apt as phone calls are just transient energy
signals, not physical objects. Phone calls vs. the same message expressed as dense text codes?
Sure, absolutely wasteful. Why do you think phone networks are so much more happy to carry SMS
over voice streams? They charge you similar "get the message through" rates (say, a dime)
while saving almost all of the cost of transmission. When videophones are the default, heaven
forbid, "voice only" calls will be cheaper too, and text will carry even fatter margins.

Anyways, if it gives you hope for the future, don't let me interfere. I'll stick with text as
long as I can, but I'm a cave-person. 

Accessiblity too

Posted Apr 10, 2008 17:51 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link]

Agreed, but text is also much easier to access for those with visual or auditory disabilities,
including many elderly people.  There's nothing wrong with video or podcasts but offering a
separate transcript is important.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 0:17 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Also it eliminates the substantial number of people without broadband or 
sufficiently capable computers (such as, oh, everyone in my extended 
family three links in any direction, bar only me and a cousin: if this 
sort of ratio is common that's a huge numer of people being excluded). 
It's annoying for those of us with slow broadband links (why pay lots 
extra for fast broadband? I don't need it. And lots of people can't get it 
at all.)

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 7:37 UTC (Fri) by angelortega (subscriber, #1306) [Link]

And don't forget people which native language is not english. You don't 
need to have many skills in english to (at least partially) understand 
written text (you can pick a dictionary for words not known to you), but 
understanding someone speaking in 'real time' is a very different thing.

Also, you can't search for words in audio.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 19:27 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

The graybeards are out in force today.  :)

With multi-tens-of-MB links commonplace today (more in Europe and Japan than the US, alas),
and >1TB on a 3.5" spindle, who cares how big a video file is?

And, I'm afraid you guys have been watching lots of conference proceedings or something.  Very
few videos are quite so easy to boil down into an easy-to-read transcript.

It wouldn't surprise me if very similar arguments were used against the telephone 100 years
ago!

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 19:51 UTC (Fri) by graydon (subscriber, #5009) [Link]

"It wouldn't surprise me if very similar arguments were used against the telephone 100 years
ago!"

Oh please. They're not "arguments against" video, rather qualifications on exactly how much we
should expect video to "displace" other things just because it can. And subsequently how much
we need to worry about it as the only way things will be done in the future.

Here we are 100 years later still reading books, writing papers and "talking" by exchanging
text fragments. Why? It's a *good technology* that's much more appropriate than a string of
recorded telephone conversations.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 11, 2008 20:19 UTC (Fri) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link]

I can download the transcript for a 30 minute interview in a few seconds. The equivalent video is several minutes. And the problem is not so much download time or storage, but *my* time.

I'm not against video per-se; there are clearly things for which video is the preferred medium. My objection is the trend for projects to use it for things that are just as easily communicated via text.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 15, 2008 8:09 UTC (Tue) by appie (subscriber, #34002) [Link]

Indeed, however much important it is to not exclude people lacking the required bandwidth
and/or cpu power, it's the whole issue of efficiency and wasting _my_ time. Talking about
time, it's more circumvent to time the speed in which to take in the information comparing
video to text+pictures.
I think it already has been pointed out, most people are better writers than actors/teachers.
Jotting something down also forces you to rethink and reconsider. Guess it's the 'gray beards'
all over again when I point out that educational institutions and students alike all over the
world still use... books. Yes, video shows up here and there, but mostly when they add actual
value to the process. 

I never watch tutorials, howtos, articles in video format. It's much easier to soak up the
information in a decently written article. If helps a lot of people if the article consists of
text plus pictures (screenshots or 'CLI shots'). Still one can time, copy/paste, forward,
condense, (dead tree alert) print & read somewhere else - no batteries needed, comment on,
search, etc. a text article in a much much more efficient manner than a
video/vodcast/screencast/webinar.

And that's not even considering the impact it has on indexing in search engines. Not an
unimportant part of our online lives.

And the person mentioning the telephone: how come we have video telephony for ages now and
almost no-one owns/uses one ? For the majority of people it plain just doesn't add much to the
communication.

I kind of suspect the whole issue of screencasts is technology for the sake of technology.
There IS a place for video, but looking at the majority of the screencasts out there i'd say:
not the place, nor the time.

Video forums for free software

Posted Apr 21, 2008 10:33 UTC (Mon) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]

> What's wrong with text?

I like audio features because I can listen to them wherever I am (e.g. in the garden) and
while doing a lot of other things (e.g. household chores). I don't have much use for video,
though.

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds