3 ms·

"Upon arriving at [Google Video], they found a link to share their video and what happened next? They got the form in Figure 13.1." "It’s only when you want to

"Upon arriving at [Google Video], they found a link to share their video and what happened next? They got the form in Figure 13.1." "It’s only when you want to publish or share your movie that Jumpcut asks for your name and email so you and others can access the movie you just made." I -hate- the web experience this article describes. If you're going to make me sign up to use your service, tell me. Don't string me along and waste my time. The point the author seems to be making: let people know what they're getting before you make them sign up. Well, I think Google Video does a pretty good job at that. And I can -view- any video I want to without signing up. Is that "gradual engagement"? If so, why is it being criticized? If not, how is it different? In fact, the more I think about this, the more the practice counters the principle. The principle seems to be (and ought to be), "Let your potential customers know what they're getting right away." Google Video does that. And if I ever want to go 'deeper' (from watching videos to posting them, or collecting them), I know right away that I need to sign up. On the other hand, to _view_ the video I've spent the last however long _making_ on JumpCut, I get SURPRISED by a registration form. Plus, why would I need to register to -see- a video. I can understand needing to register to post or save a video, but to see it? I'd argue, then, that Google Video actually does a -better- job delaying the registration component than any of these examples. And they're up-front about it from the start.

cstejerean 19y ago
Google Video is not a good counter example to Jumpcut. I think Google Video works perfectly. The point of Google Video is to view videos, which it allows you to do without an account. To share a video you need to have an account, same as in Jumpcut. (Typically you have to make users create an account to post content otherwise a never ending stream of spam is likely to follow, degrading the quality of the service for legitimate users) For Jumpcut, the real value in letting the user upload and edit a video is to get a feel for the video editing functionality without having to sign up, (since the video editing is really their selling point). If the user likes what they've created they can sign up to post it. This is key. Let the user try out the idea of your site without signing up. You can then require them to signup if they like it and want to keep their work. Recently there was another post where somebody had a startup that had some cool way to learn a foreign language http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144998 I wanted to check it out but had to sign up to really see how it all worked. So I left.

cstejerean 19y ago

Google Video is not a good counter example to Jumpcut. I think Google Video works perfectly. The point of Google Video is to view videos, which it allows you to do without an account. To share a video you need to have an account, same as in Jumpcut. (Typically you have to make users create an account to post content otherwise a never ending stream of spam is likely to follow, degrading the quality of the service for legitimate users) For Jumpcut, the real value in letting the user upload and edit a video is to get a feel for the video editing functionality without having to sign up, (since the video editing is really their selling point). If the user likes what they've created they can sign up to post it. This is key. Let the user try out the idea of your site without signing up. You can then require them to signup if they like it and want to keep their work. Recently there was another post where somebody had a startup that had some cool way to learn a foreign language http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144998 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=144998 I wanted to check it out but had to sign up to really see how it all worked. So I left.