"If video takes over the web, and most people start using it for that, will you go with the flow and start watching video, hunt and peck for textual stuff or give up entirely? Will you keep trying to persuade the majority that it's wrong?"
Regarding video as morally wrong is insane. It's not as if there is a finite amount of web and the video is crowding out the text. What you get is a contour defined by convenience, both of the sender and the reciever. This is why lots of talks get published as video: the alternative is usually not a text transcript, it's them not bothering to publish it.
I don't usually bother with video myself, especially not at work.
I think what we're seeing is a bit like the rash of "FMV games" in the nineties as that technology became possible. People using it because it's new. It'll never achieve even 90% takeup, and after it's less new people will go back to using it where it fits the convenience supply/demand curve. Consider mobile phones: video is possible, audio is the default, but people *still* use text - because sometimes it's more convenient.
no subject
Regarding video as morally wrong is insane. It's not as if there is a finite amount of web and the video is crowding out the text. What you get is a contour defined by convenience, both of the sender and the reciever. This is why lots of talks get published as video: the alternative is usually not a text transcript, it's them not bothering to publish it.
I don't usually bother with video myself, especially not at work.
I think what we're seeing is a bit like the rash of "FMV games" in the nineties as that technology became possible. People using it because it's new. It'll never achieve even 90% takeup, and after it's less new people will go back to using it where it fits the convenience supply/demand curve. Consider mobile phones: video is possible, audio is the default, but people *still* use text - because sometimes it's more convenient.