Videos vs Written Articles

[Old School]

There were a lot of negative responses to this JSO video that lacked a transcript.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/127092013.html

The GBPG has been doing some of this lately too. Many people prefer written articles for various reasons. I myself prefer articles, but until I read the comments thought I was alone on this.

I'm interested in your views.

[vince]

I like both.

[MadScientist]

I can't stand the videos on the web for news. I want to be able to read the article at on my own time. Plus when I'm at work, my main browser doesn't have flash, and the computer doesn't have sound.

The first t in HTTP stands for TEXT damn it!

[pbmax]

Video is the only way to get the complete context, but the Packers have not yet figured out how to wire the reporters for sound.

If it wasn't for the transcript, no one would know the question. I like both, sometimes the video is impractical.

[MJZiggy]

Gotta have the transcript. I can often scan the text in less time than it takes to load the video, watch the commercial and watch the video. If it's something big, sure. I watched Obama visit with the team, but for a regular interview, I want the text.

[mission]

I never watch the videos, they annoy me. Most of the time I'm browsing on an iPad and they never work. Try to make it a point to not click out of principle.

[Upnorth]

It is easier to miss verbal details on video unless you rewatch them a number of times. I prefer to have both when possible.

[Smeefers]

I can't watch video's at work. Also, there's probably a lot of news I'm missing out on when I'm in a portion of the country that doesn't get high speed internet... which is a lot more places than people would like to think. Once I'm 20 minutes out of green bay, I have 2 bars on a slow network. I can barely get the weather or have a phone conversation, let alone stream a video. But I can download a text page.

[SkinBasket]

videos are for guys like brandon who can't read good,