Re: Video vs The Written Word

[Peter Neilson <neilson -at- windstream -dot- net>]

Advantages:
 - WTFV may be easier to enforce than RTFM.
 - Some people cannot read.
 - Some people can but do not read.
 - SMEs may believe their work is done when they've mumbled before a 
camera.

Disadvantages:
 - Very hard to update.
 - Bohhhring videos are bohhhhhhhhring.
 - Snazzy videos are often content free.
 - Hard to discuss the three major points in an hour-long video without 
re-watching the entire video. (You can't just turn to the second 
top-level head, but instead have to hunt for it in the unscripted 
ramblings that pass for video documentation.)
 - If the quality is poor (as it usually is in amateur videos) each 
viewer must perform the sifting and integration work normally done by a 
tech writer. May have to invent questions to ask to learn material that 
should have been covered but wasn't.
 - The handout for the video, if any, becomes the outline of the 
document that should have been written.
 - If the quality is to be high, it'll cost as least as much to get it 
right as it does to write a set of docs.

Pitfalls:
 - In any crime, the principle question is "Cui bono?" Who wants the 
videos, and what do they (personally) gain?

Maybe I am too old and out of touch. I have not watched TV since about 1985.

procrastiwriter wrote:
 > Out of the blue, a few key people are hell bent on using videos (e.g.