• expr@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    None of what you described requires a video. Articles can be written for different audiences, and, in fact, are much more capable of mixed-media content. Text can be selected/copied/consumed by screen readers etc, graphics can be embedded with accessibility information (unlike videos, which can easily contain inaccessible content), images can contain controls that allow one to pan, zoom, etc. and can be separately downloaded, other file types can be embedded with their own controls (including animations, as needed). Relevant related content (like, say, documentation) can be linked inline where it’s referenced, rather than dropping a huge bag of links in a video description. Articles can be indexed, searched, translated, and more. Articles also allow each person to consume the content at their own pace, rather than whatever pace is determined by the person in the video. I personally find videos agonizingly slow compared to how fast I can read.

    Videos are an ineffective mechanism for communication of information, particularly for information that is more complex or technical in nature. They are popular due to the ever-shrinking attention span of people, but that doesn’t mean we should optimize for that.

    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I’ll hold on to my opinion, you’ll hold on to yours. Just don’t think your opinion is fact, or even worse, universal.

      One last thing: videos can be sped up.