(no subject)

[chhotii]

Pet peeve of the day: Websites that present the information that you're looking for ONLY in a video, with no textual transcript.

What about the deaf? Oh, I guess they don't count, huh. What if the speaker on your PC is busted? What if you're on a really slow connection? Oh, I guess you're not stinking rich enough, and therefore don't count. What if you're in a waiting room, at the office, or other people in the room are trying to watch television, and you don't want to disturb other people?

Comments

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i (still) heartily endorse websites that can claim LYNX FRIENDLY!

[happyfunpaul.livejournal.com]

Also, simply a matter of time. On my online courses (as you saw) I received/perceived information more than twice as quickly by reading than from audio/video, even with a bad transcript.

This wouldn't apply in cases of video that actually use the capabilities of audio/video to present more information that can't be expressed easily in text and simple graphics, but that's rarely the case.

[chhotii.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there's that too... Although, I suspect that the websites I have in mind have as their target audience in mind stupid people who do not read as quickly and fluently as we do.

[rmd.livejournal.com]

gah. hate that.

[hammercock.livejournal.com]

Hell, what about not totally sucking as a website? :-b

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

I want a pony, too!

[achinhibitor.livejournal.com]

These days, it's the natural thing to do. And I suspect that it takes more mental effort, and possibly more time, to edit together a clear text explanation than it does to ad lib in front of a camera. Hmmm, actually, teaching by audio/video is something we've been doing since before we were human, but writing is only a few thousand years old, so maybe that is to be expected. It's also possible that the presenter can't write well -- I seem to remember they've stopped teaching that in school.