3 ms·

This possibly isn't the right place to offer this information but ... I let your video run for about ten seconds and then turned it off. The characterisation st

by mst 17y ago

This possibly isn't the right place to offer this information but ... I let your video run for about ten seconds and then turned it off. The characterisation stuff just ... just no. I wanted to see the product. I am, however, -extremely- aware that I Am Not Your Target Market and that the story-oriented style can work perfectly well. But if the video is going to aim for a marcomms style then it'd be nice if you built out the explanation stuff a bit more. And made it work with ctrl+click rather than being javascript silliness only. </grumpy-old-school-unix-head>

roachsocal 17y ago
That's good feedback. As far as the video goes, we used to have only the developer stuff in it. Then the non-technical people didn't get a word of it. So we decided to add the first minute to explain the problem we're trying to solve. With the JS overlays -- when we launch the real website (in the next couple of months) it won't use those -- it's just a normal, click as you go, website. Also, we'll very likely split the video back into two, one for developers, one for site owners.
- moe 17y ago
  Two more things about that video: Get rid of sentences like "The solution xxx has been waiting for". Be humble in language, impress with the demonstration instead. Get rid of the music or change it. It's okay in the beginning when it's hardly noticable but as "drama" builds up it becomes rather ridiculous (reminded me of a really bad McGyver episode). Other than that I liked the video. It did a very good job at getting the point across for me in reasonable time. Many intro-screencasts suffer from being too long or too high- or low-level. I think you struck a good balance there. I don't agree with the complaint that it should be more technical. For me it was just right to get a quick grasp on what you offer. Anything more detailed should either be in text or in a second screencast.

by mst 17y ago

roachsocal 17y ago

That's good feedback. As far as the video goes, we used to have only the developer stuff in it. Then the non-technical people didn't get a word of it. So we decided to add the first minute to explain the problem we're trying to solve. With the JS overlays -- when we launch the real website (in the next couple of months) it won't use those -- it's just a normal, click as you go, website. Also, we'll very likely split the video back into two, one for developers, one for site owners.

moe 17y ago
Two more things about that video: Get rid of sentences like "The solution xxx has been waiting for". Be humble in language, impress with the demonstration instead. Get rid of the music or change it. It's okay in the beginning when it's hardly noticable but as "drama" builds up it becomes rather ridiculous (reminded me of a really bad McGyver episode). Other than that I liked the video. It did a very good job at getting the point across for me in reasonable time. Many intro-screencasts suffer from being too long or too high- or low-level. I think you struck a good balance there. I don't agree with the complaint that it should be more technical. For me it was just right to get a quick grasp on what you offer. Anything more detailed should either be in text or in a second screencast.