3 ms·

Why are people willing to pay for screencasts(of any quality), but NEVER for a well written article over the same thing. I personally hate trying to learn thin

by earlz 13y ago

Why are people willing to pay for screencasts(of any quality), but NEVER for a well written article over the same thing. I personally hate trying to learn things from videos. I can't search it. I can't copy and paste code from it. I can't skim over it. Later review and skimming ahead is lousy, at best, impossible at worst. The only thing screencasts have going for them is that they are (in general) easier to create than a well written article. The difference for readers/viewers though is substantial.

wikwocket 13y ago
We do pay for well-written articles. They're called books. Also, video can be a powerful tool. The combination of seeing a thing or a process, hearing a narration about it, and observing another human being interact with it, provides more bandwidth across a wider spectrum of our senses. For some people, it is easier and faster to learn this way, in the same way that it is easier to learn from a tutor than from a textbook.
- zhs 13y ago
  Amen.
ngoel36 13y ago
Earlz, I don't think that people aren't willing to pay for a well written article. Take a look at self-published Amazon Kindle e-books. Some of them are as short as 20 pages and as cheap as 99 cents. And many have been insanely successful. But that's besides the point. In general, you're right. A lot of screencasts out there suck. And as you clearly exemplify, a lot of people learn better from text than video. Which is precisely why screencasts need their own platform independent from a pure video hosting service like YouTube. We support full Github-style markdown and code syntax highlighting, and we encourage all content producers to pair their videos with annotations that are sufficient enough to stand alone (similar to what Ryan Bates does with Railscasts/AsciiCasts). And we think that a unified platform which sets that standard will help make it the norm rather than an exception.

by earlz 13y ago

wikwocket 13y ago

We do pay for well-written articles. They're called books. Also, video can be a powerful tool. The combination of seeing a thing or a process, hearing a narration about it, and observing another human being interact with it, provides more bandwidth across a wider spectrum of our senses. For some people, it is easier and faster to learn this way, in the same way that it is easier to learn from a tutor than from a textbook.

zhs 13y ago
Amen.

ngoel36 13y ago

Earlz, I don't think that people aren't willing to pay for a well written article. Take a look at self-published Amazon Kindle e-books. Some of them are as short as 20 pages and as cheap as 99 cents. And many have been insanely successful. But that's besides the point. In general, you're right. A lot of screencasts out there suck. And as you clearly exemplify, a lot of people learn better from text than video. Which is precisely why screencasts need their own platform independent from a pure video hosting service like YouTube. We support full Github-style markdown and code syntax highlighting, and we encourage all content producers to pair their videos with annotations that are sufficient enough to stand alone (similar to what Ryan Bates does with Railscasts/AsciiCasts). And we think that a unified platform which sets that standard will help make it the norm rather than an exception.