Words Worth
I must admit, I do a lot of surfing on the ol' interwebs. I consume information as fast as I can click, as I enjoy keeping up with everything going on in the world. From news conglomerators to lists of links (MCPdailylinks.blogspot.com for example) to mainstream sites full of articles, I peruse them all. I enjoy a quick read, sometimes a lengthier one, but it is all based on my eye scanning timing and ability.
Most sites keep my need for quick info sated, but there is a new trend in content that is disrupting my rhythm. This is the choice to put that information in video format.
Video definitely serves its purpose when trying to relate a certain happening or visual experience. You can only really experience a guy getting hit by an ice cream truck while doing the dougie through video form. But for most everything else, a written article will suffice. I do not need a talking head explaining a news situation when a 150 word paragraph would accomplish the same task. Putting items in video format only slows down the absorption rate. Loading times, ads and gratuitous graphics only get in the way of me obtaining whatever tidbit I am curious about and moving on. I get so frustrated waiting for a video to buffer and load when the information in plain text would load almost instantaneously. I could have potentially read and moved on to something new by the time a video is ready to play. The hassle is just unnecessary.
Well, unnecessary from my point of view. I understand that using video is an easy way for webpages to force an advertisement on the viewer. Many sites will put a short video ad before the actual content, but this is merely a speedbump in the process. Crafty surfers will know to load the video up, switch tabs to something else while it runs, then switch back and scroll to the point of interest on the video timeline. The ads just become an annoyance than a dealbreaker. The only thing that really bothers me concerning ads is when they ad is longer in duration that the actual content of the video itself. That is unnecessary.
What I feel is sad is that the dominance of video in relating content to the audience is a recognition of the preference of passive learning and, to put it bluntly, the stupidity of what is seen as the average consumer. By putting information in video through a talking head or designed graphic, the observer need not employ any reading, language or imagination, just look at the pictures and listen to what is being said. It is basically the same argument your teacher made to you in that you should read To Kill a Mockingbird, not watch the movie. My point is not to be preachy about reading v television, but it definitely relates to why video is impeding on my surfing experience.
Fortunately, I think many sites are catching on to this complaint and are starting to provide written summaries or passages that accompany the video content at the top of the page. Thanks to this, I can scan and read the info I want to know, then if my interest is piqued enough to warrant the video routine, I can choose to do so. This is how it should be. The text is the entree while the pictures and video are the side dishes that make the entree more enjoyable and complete the meal. Albeit, a very fast meal that I may take two bites of and then move on to the next dish.
No comments:
Post a Comment