The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[B][U]Comparing web content � plain text, still images, and video & audio media![/U][/B]All sorts of web sites come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, designs, layouts, structures, fonts, and colours, but the three main aspects they all have in common is that they usually include some text, some images, & some media in the form of video or audio, or a mixed combination of the aforementioned.
But is text any better than video, or pictures any better than text? I’ve put down my views on which I think are good, and which might not be so appealing. Which is better?
There’s only one way to find out … ffffiiiiiiii-nd out bellow:
Plain Text!
The Internet has been awash with text for as long as it has existed. Text is understood across the world, although admittedly there are some barriers with people speaking different languages, text can be used to tell a story, give instructions, or just have a friendly chit-chat.
With translation services from Google or Bing, text from any site can be transformed from one language to another, with very little effort, and the accuracy of such translations are getting better with each passing day.
Text from any web site can be grabbed, sampled used in any number of different ways (though not always legally), and search engines can index text easily, making it available to people who are interested in what you have to say.
However, one of the problems with text is that there can be a lot of it. Reading can be fun for many people, but some fine it a little mundane, and are less willing to read through long articles, or product information pages. How many people here can honestly say they’ve sat down and read through the 9 pages of terms and conditions from Freeola (PDF), or indeed any site’s T&C’s? Not many I’ll bet, because it isn’t fun!
But that being said, text is still used so much, and a lot of people do like a good read. It’s the oldest method of communication on the Internet, and easy for computer programmes the world over to manipulate in any way necessary, so I give plain text an 7 / 10.
Why just 7? Well, as great as text can be, other forms of content exist, which are quite popular!
Still Images & Photographs!
It is said that a picture speaks 1000 words, and it shows with so many web sites including a picture here, a doodle there, and a photograph right down there. A photo can show a person far better and much quicker than a long-winded text description.
But on there own, some images might not be too clear as to what they are showing, so you might want to include images with some already existing text.
Including an image to accompany text came along pretty swiftly on the Internet, to spice up the look of a page, and to provide other means of showing off site content. The addition of an image or two can push your message across to your audience in new ways, making whatever you have to say or show stand out along with the text.
At times, it can be silly not to include an image or photo along with your text. If you were giving directions to a specific location, why would you not include a map? In fact, in this day and age, a site that doesn’t include an image when one it’s clearly beneficial may come across as amateurish, or just plain lazy and inconsiderate but the site owner.
However, a site that is plastered with images can load slowly, and cause a user to either “stop” the page loading, missing perhaps some very helpful pictures, or clicking on the web browser’s “back” button and moving on to a new site.
Another issue is that images are not as easily indexable by search engines, as they can’t “see” an image in the same way we can. People with poor or no ability of sight are also unable to enjoy any pictures, and if important detail is embedded within an image, the user who can’t see the image can’t enjoy that detail.
Therefore, I consider including images on your site to be an important part of any web site, where relevant of course, so I’d score web images a 8 / 10.
You might consider images deserve a higher score, but if they are used badly, such as they are too large in size, not relevant to the page, or conceal vital information that people who can’t view images are unable to access, then the image isn’t as useful as if the details were “written”.
Video & Audio Media!
With YouTube hitting the scene not to many years ago, video (and along with it, audio) on the Internet has shot through the roof. You’ll be hard pressed not to be able to find a video regarding any subject via YouTube.
Presenting content and information in the form of a video is perhaps the most user friendly way of doing so for the mass-market, as it doesn’t require the user to read, and the Internet user in general is a lazy person, and easily distracted - why read, when you can watch? With the ability to view video on portable devices like mobile phones, netbooks and media players, access to video from many places is simply enough, its no wonder it’s use is so appealing.
While many sites still use text and images, you’ve probably noticed just how many now include a video as well. Be it for an attraction, business pitch, web building software, or any number of reasons.
Another contributing factor is of course the increased Internet connections speeds, and reduced video / audio file sizes because of more efficient compression technologies. On a dial-up connection, video was pretty much “out”, but nowadays, with broadband and mobile, it’s “in”, and here to stay.
A video is all the more appealing when it has some sound to it, giving a little extra information, telling us what we are seeing, and essentially completing the experience a video can give.
But audio on it’s own works well to, and is quicker to download if there are no pictures expanding the file size. Podcasting is a popular use of just an audio file, allowing people to listen to a weekly web blog, or topical discussion about arrange of subjects. And who could forget, the audio track?
One downside with video (and sometimes audio) is that it can take a lot of effort to put together, to upload, and to be downloaded by users. There is a fine balance between picture and audio quality being at an acceptable level, while the file size is also at an acceptable level for users to wait for the video to download. Streaming is a great alternative, but any interruptions can cause frustration and potential user desertion from your site.
We also have the same downside that images have, in that search engines can’t “see” it, and neither can people who can’t see or hear. A site with just video blocked out these people, and, while also a little rude, might also be quite illegal in many counties, depending on the content and information being presented.
But because of it’s mass appeal, and ability to present content to many users, I give the use of video and audio on a web site a 9 / 10.
If you have the know-how, and time to put one together, a video for your pages can be a great benefit to whatever information you are trying to portray.
A mixed bag is always a treat!
I do think that video is the clear winner in terms of content presentation, but as there are still some drawbacks, and not forgetting the unfortunate individuals who cannot access video for many different reasons, it can’t really be the only thing that’s available on a web site, at least, not yet!
Overall, I feel a good web site should consist of informative and well-written text, with an image or two to put the content across. A web video is a great bonus, but must be balanced with the effort needed to put one together, and how much time it’ll take for a user to wait for it to load.
What is your take?
Do you agree / disagree with my points? Prefer a good read to a stupid YouTube video any day of the week? Feel free to add your views to this thread!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
As always, any comments, questions, and especially corrections are welcome.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
[B][U]Comparing web content � plain text, still images, and video & audio media![/U][/B]All sorts of web sites come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, designs, layouts, structures, fonts, and colours, but the three main aspects they all have in common is that they usually include some text, some images, & some media in the form of video or audio, or a mixed combination of the aforementioned.
But is text any better than video, or pictures any better than text? I’ve put down my views on which I think are good, and which might not be so appealing. Which is better?
There’s only one way to find out … ffffiiiiiiii-nd out bellow:
Plain Text!
The Internet has been awash with text for as long as it has existed. Text is understood across the world, although admittedly there are some barriers with people speaking different languages, text can be used to tell a story, give instructions, or just have a friendly chit-chat.
With translation services from Google or Bing, text from any site can be transformed from one language to another, with very little effort, and the accuracy of such translations are getting better with each passing day.
Text from any web site can be grabbed, sampled used in any number of different ways (though not always legally), and search engines can index text easily, making it available to people who are interested in what you have to say.
However, one of the problems with text is that there can be a lot of it. Reading can be fun for many people, but some fine it a little mundane, and are less willing to read through long articles, or product information pages. How many people here can honestly say they’ve sat down and read through the 9 pages of terms and conditions from Freeola (PDF), or indeed any site’s T&C’s? Not many I’ll bet, because it isn’t fun!
But that being said, text is still used so much, and a lot of people do like a good read. It’s the oldest method of communication on the Internet, and easy for computer programmes the world over to manipulate in any way necessary, so I give plain text an 7 / 10.
Why just 7? Well, as great as text can be, other forms of content exist, which are quite popular!
Still Images & Photographs!
It is said that a picture speaks 1000 words, and it shows with so many web sites including a picture here, a doodle there, and a photograph right down there. A photo can show a person far better and much quicker than a long-winded text description.
But on there own, some images might not be too clear as to what they are showing, so you might want to include images with some already existing text.
Including an image to accompany text came along pretty swiftly on the Internet, to spice up the look of a page, and to provide other means of showing off site content. The addition of an image or two can push your message across to your audience in new ways, making whatever you have to say or show stand out along with the text.
At times, it can be silly not to include an image or photo along with your text. If you were giving directions to a specific location, why would you not include a map? In fact, in this day and age, a site that doesn’t include an image when one it’s clearly beneficial may come across as amateurish, or just plain lazy and inconsiderate but the site owner.
However, a site that is plastered with images can load slowly, and cause a user to either “stop” the page loading, missing perhaps some very helpful pictures, or clicking on the web browser’s “back” button and moving on to a new site.
Another issue is that images are not as easily indexable by search engines, as they can’t “see” an image in the same way we can. People with poor or no ability of sight are also unable to enjoy any pictures, and if important detail is embedded within an image, the user who can’t see the image can’t enjoy that detail.
Therefore, I consider including images on your site to be an important part of any web site, where relevant of course, so I’d score web images a 8 / 10.
You might consider images deserve a higher score, but if they are used badly, such as they are too large in size, not relevant to the page, or conceal vital information that people who can’t view images are unable to access, then the image isn’t as useful as if the details were “written”.
Video & Audio Media!
With YouTube hitting the scene not to many years ago, video (and along with it, audio) on the Internet has shot through the roof. You’ll be hard pressed not to be able to find a video regarding any subject via YouTube.
Presenting content and information in the form of a video is perhaps the most user friendly way of doing so for the mass-market, as it doesn’t require the user to read, and the Internet user in general is a lazy person, and easily distracted - why read, when you can watch? With the ability to view video on portable devices like mobile phones, netbooks and media players, access to video from many places is simply enough, its no wonder it’s use is so appealing.
While many sites still use text and images, you’ve probably noticed just how many now include a video as well. Be it for an attraction, business pitch, web building software, or any number of reasons.
Another contributing factor is of course the increased Internet connections speeds, and reduced video / audio file sizes because of more efficient compression technologies. On a dial-up connection, video was pretty much “out”, but nowadays, with broadband and mobile, it’s “in”, and here to stay.
A video is all the more appealing when it has some sound to it, giving a little extra information, telling us what we are seeing, and essentially completing the experience a video can give.
But audio on it’s own works well to, and is quicker to download if there are no pictures expanding the file size. Podcasting is a popular use of just an audio file, allowing people to listen to a weekly web blog, or topical discussion about arrange of subjects. And who could forget, the audio track?
One downside with video (and sometimes audio) is that it can take a lot of effort to put together, to upload, and to be downloaded by users. There is a fine balance between picture and audio quality being at an acceptable level, while the file size is also at an acceptable level for users to wait for the video to download. Streaming is a great alternative, but any interruptions can cause frustration and potential user desertion from your site.
We also have the same downside that images have, in that search engines can’t “see” it, and neither can people who can’t see or hear. A site with just video blocked out these people, and, while also a little rude, might also be quite illegal in many counties, depending on the content and information being presented.
But because of it’s mass appeal, and ability to present content to many users, I give the use of video and audio on a web site a 9 / 10.
If you have the know-how, and time to put one together, a video for your pages can be a great benefit to whatever information you are trying to portray.
A mixed bag is always a treat!
I do think that video is the clear winner in terms of content presentation, but as there are still some drawbacks, and not forgetting the unfortunate individuals who cannot access video for many different reasons, it can’t really be the only thing that’s available on a web site, at least, not yet!
Overall, I feel a good web site should consist of informative and well-written text, with an image or two to put the content across. A web video is a great bonus, but must be balanced with the effort needed to put one together, and how much time it’ll take for a user to wait for it to load.
What is your take?
Do you agree / disagree with my points? Prefer a good read to a stupid YouTube video any day of the week? Feel free to add your views to this thread!
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
As always, any comments, questions, and especially corrections are welcome.