
My Web is Text Based  - trs90
http://www.marksonland.com/2009/02/my_web_is_text_based.html
======
KaiP
The main problem I have with video over text is that it takes much longer to
convey the same information. I can read about 5 times faster (450-500 wpm)
than most video (90-100 wpm). So other than special cases where video is
crucial, I much prefer text.

~~~
jacquesm
My response to video links is to simply ignore them (which is quite ironic,
given my background).

If you can't find the time to at least accompany your video with a textual
representation then I'm not interested, I think the choice of medium should
lie with the recipient, not with the producer.

~~~
access_denied
The choice of medium will lie with the recipient. That's the promise the web
holds for us. I hope it fullfills it.

------
markessien
The problem does not lie with video - the problem is that video today is very
linear. Even people who think they prefer text do not actually do so - they
just prefer being in control of the reading speed and being able to
immediately jump to the information they want.

Imagine video that behaved like a real person sitting opposite you. You type
in google - "Where is Tibet", and a video immediately pops up with a person
who says "Tibet is in China" and at the bottom of the video a bunch of
relevant extra information popup, allowing you to jump up and down in the
video. This would work a lot better.

Video has to become searchable, navigable, and you should be able to have an
information context in any videos that you watch. Then the web will benefit by
becoming video based.

~~~
davidw
So instead of a 17-byte string, you get some enormous video (not simply audio,
but a video with pictures and everything) of someone telling you _exactly the
same thing_ that you could have read in a few seconds?

I agree that things like searchable video have their place, but it is not for
stuff like that!

~~~
markessien
Don't let bad implementations constrain your imagination!

------
sqs
Also, I often can't watch video content without unplugging my speakers and
putting my headphones in so I don't disturb other people. Oh, and my laptop
fan starts going like crazy and my CPU goes to 100% with FLV.

~~~
wenbert
God I hate Flash on Mac. Burns up my CPU for watching a 3 minute video...

~~~
joubert
I use ClickToFlash <http://github.com/rentzsch/clicktoflash/tree/master>

------
mixmax
Video is primarily for entertainment, text is for conveying information. At
least on the net.

Newspapers don't seem to understand this - a lot of them are starting to have
videoclips on their sites, apparently to grab marketshare from TV. It's much
more expensive than writing an article, and it doesn't work. There are, of
course exceptions: "nipslips", catastrophes and such call for video, but most
news don't.

~~~
brandnewlow
A-men! U.S. j-schools are obsessed with turning everyone into multimedia
reporters...when people still just want great text stories.

The original post is great. I'm sending it to all my journalism buddies.

------
unalone
This shift over to primarily video content irritates me: I like reading text,
and video is difficult with my college's slow Internet.

~~~
jacquesm
I think the main reason why we're seeing such a shift is that in the long run
it is easier to ram advertising down people's throats over a video link than
it is to get them to click on ads in textual content. The CPM's paid for
delivered video ads reflect that, they count those much higher than delivered
(but not clicked) text or graphics (even flash) ads.

~~~
access_denied
Yes, and in the case of espn: you didn't think Joe Intosports likes to read
(espicially at the evening, it's too much like work).

~~~
jacquesm
True enough :) Another big factor is that television / video by default are
passive, in other words your brain is in a different mode than when you are
reading. A person that is reading is far more likely to see an advertisement
for what it is, an interruption of their day and a waste of bandwidth.
Television / video consumers are more in the mood for wasting time and will
pay attention to almost everything as long as it moves.

------
krishna2
I completely agree and my visits to such sites have gone down as well. Other
sites that I have stopped visiting less include sports.yahoo.com and
movies.yahoo.com. And don't even get me started with tv.yahoo.com.

------
sobriquet
I totally agree. Why would I watch a video if I'm looking to navigate
somewhere?

However, big brands might find creative ways to use them on search results.
Check out the one for Pedigree (<http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=pedigree>)
This commercial first ran during the Super Bowl and is pretty funny. I'll bet
certain campaigns could do well in search, prodding the user to dive into the
ad experience more (i.e. hangintherejack.com)

------
bobbyi
If you don't like video, maybe you shouldn't be going to the web site of a
cable channel?

------
antiismist
I feel the same way about ESPN. I like reading interesting articles about
sports but it is actually not that easy to find good content - there is no
hacker news for sports (yet!).

~~~
jimbokun
I find Bill Simmons writing on sports excellent. He kind of disguises the
quality of his writing with the references to crappy pop culture and the
sophomoric behavior of him and his buddies. But in doing so I think he reveals
a lot about who sports fans really are, not some idealized version. He often
talks about whether or not he has wasted his life by devoting so much time and
effort to following sports and making jokes about how pathetic his wife thinks
he is for agonizing over his fantasy teams (she calls his fantasy league "The
League of Dorks").

I find it hard to get into other sports writers now, partly because Simmons
does such a good job skewering them. When they try to make sports into
something epic or sacred, Simmons is quick to point out all the frailties of
both the competitors and the poor saps who devote too much time to something
that doesn't really mean all that much to their lives.

And then he dives right back into reveling in the joy of being passionate
about something that is ultimately meaningless, capturing the essence of being
a sports fan.

(I have no idea why I just wrote three paragraphs about this. Must be infected
by whatever gets into Simmons when he does one of those day long live chats.)

~~~
brandnewlow
I've never been one for team sports, preferring running, swimming and the
like.

But I have read and will read anything written by Bill Simmons. The man is one
of the great writers of our time. He's the Stephen King of sports writers, a
guy who keeps pumping out solid, often great stuff that transcends his genre.

I don't follow football, but I read Simmons' picks during the season. I don't
follow basketball, but I read his trade value column every year. Why? Because

-the guy explains it in an interesting way -puts it in the proper perspective like you said -links me out to great, great stuff I never would have found otherwise (like the greatest YouTube video ever: [http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&...](http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3712343)) -is now living a bit of a glamorous, interesting life that's fun to experience vicariously -can write like the devil

This is a guy who took a week to review the Karate Kid trilogy in detail
instead of filing regular columns one summer.
<http://espn.go.com/page2/movies/s/simmons/020830.html>

And yet he attended a funeral for a young athlete who died senselessly, and
wrote a "serious" piece that was moving, humble and very honest:
[http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/0803...](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080312)

There are writers who excel at structure, writers who are idea guys, writers
who can nail little details, and then there are writers who simply have more
firepower than the average man. They can write more, faster, and with more
panache than 99% of the folks out there. It won't all be good, but it'll all
be interesting. Simmons has a lot of firepower.

Which, to get back on topic, is why it's INFURIATING, that he's cranking out
3-4 podcasts a month and only 1-2 columns at this point. I simply can't listen
to the podcasts. They don't fit into my schedule at all, in any way. I don't
have an hour to stare at my computer while it plays an audio stream. Bring
back the columns.

~~~
jimbokun
Clicking through to the Karate Kid link, I re-read this:

"1. Randee Heller as Mrs. LaRusso, one of my favorite Hollywood Moms of the
'80s (right up there with Mrs. Keaton and Mrs. Bueller). You know, in a five-
year span, Randee played Gabe Kaplan's wife in "Fast Break," Ken Reeves'
stripper girlfriend in "The White Shadow," and Daniel-San's Mom in "The Karate
Kid," and then she was never seen again ... and I guess my point is this: You
don't need to work anymore with a résumé like that."

Is there anyone else whose pop culture knowledge is more encylopedic than this
guy? Who else has a list of favorite 80s Hollywood Moms and can rattle off
their roles on queue? He probably double checked IMDB, but still...

------
hulk222
There was a reason to reading the sports section!

~~~
theotherjimmy
It seems to be what keeps a large puportion of the american population
reading! However, it does not make business sense.

------
TweedHeads
For me, videos on the web should be no longer than a minute. A funny cat, a
plane crashing, a meteor shower, etc. concise and to the point.

I can't stand long conversations in video that can be resumed in ten lines of
text.

------
access_denied
What I find interesting that with espn.com in the first paragrpahs, he
describes one of the futures of television (Future? end game.).

------
nazgulnarsil
people don't like reading. most people read @ an 8th grade level because of
the brain damage inflicted by mandatory government education.

~~~
andylei
most people probably would be illiterate without a mandatory government
education

~~~
nazgulnarsil
please don't upvote such ahistorical nonsense. Even the most casual
examination of historical records reveals this to be false.

 _In the early 1800s, Pierre Samuel Dupont, an influential French citizen who
helped Thomas Jefferson negotiate for the Louisiana Purchase, came to America
and surveyed education here. He found that most young Americans could read,
write, and "cipher" (do arithmetic), and that Americans of all ages could and
did read the Bible. He estimated that fewer than four Americans in a thousand
were unable to write neatly and legibly._

people were fine before the advent of the nanny state in 1933.

~~~
jibiki
Certainly we had public education in the 1800s(?) What is the difference
between public education (like we had then) and "nanny state" education? (I'm
asking this seriously...) What particular legislation would you point to as
causing a change?

~~~
patio11
At the time he visited, public education was rare and voluntary. The first US
law mandating attendance at school was introduced in 1852 by Massachusetts,
sometime after the reported 90%+ literacy rates were achieved. (I have
significant skepticism that it was actually 99.96%, but 90% sufficient to read
and write at what we'd consider a grade school level these days, sure.)

~~~
andrew1
996 out of a thousand would be 99.6%, but I agree with your suspicions.

~~~
jodrellblank
"would be"? You mean it isn't?

(I've been reading <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=486574> )

