3 ms·
No. There is no way to appreciate the information communicated because I cannot take it in at my own tempo (faster / slower). It's hard too see whats going on i
by Asa-Nisse 17y ago
No. There is no way to appreciate the information communicated because I cannot take it in at my own tempo (faster / slower). It's hard too see whats going on in the cast. More important it eats my time unneccessarily.
I much more prefer screenshots with loads of text.
- davidw 17y agoI agree - I can't grep screencasts, so while they may be sort of useful once, after that they're just annoying. In terms of information/byte, they are vastly inferior to screenshots + well written documentation.
- jammus 17y agoAgreed. Also, audio can be quite intrusive meaning that you then have to find an appropriate time to view them.
- russell 17y agoAgreed. Screencasts are linear at the presenters pace. Documentation can be skimmed or probed randomly. Often I dive deep to see how a particular issue is handled. All too often screencast production qualities are terrible: lighting sucks, the cameraman focuses on the wrong things, the pacing is wrong... Developers are readers. It's mostly what we do: code, documentation, logs, stack traces. We are a pretty literate bunch. OTOH a video of a new tool would be more useful for a mechanic than the usual postcard description. That being said, good graphics help a lot. I found the Wikipedia sort demos wonderful.
- bhousel 17y agoActually in QuickTime player (not sure about others) you can adjust the playback speed. Command-K will bring up A/V controls and you can speed or slow it without affecting pitch. I use this trick often when watching developer screencasts.