If a picture’s worth a thousand words, what’s the value of thousands of single frames in motion? Video has transformed the Web in too many ways to detail here. A good question to consider, however, is when is video appropriate on the Web?
Conservative Answer: Only when it delivers more value to the user than image or text. Don’t go crazy!
Radical Answer: Only when there is a good reason not to. No harm, no foul — right?
When gauging whether the use of video is helpful or harmful on a website, most users will fall in either the conservative or radical camp. What camp you’re in doesn’t matter too much. There are some items that do matter, though. Here are a few criteria for appropriate video usage on the Web:
- When Describing a Process — There are times when you just need to see somebody do it. This makes
“how-to” videos extremely valuable. Whether brewing a cup of coffee via French Press or changing your own motor oil, videos that describe and visually detail a process provide more value than images can. - When Experience Outweighs Details - People value experience, and the closer to first hand experience the better. Can you imagine hearing and seeing the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence? I mean, the old, crinkled document is cool, but seeing and hearing that speech would outweigh reading. There are also the instances where visual video enhancement and effects improve the experience.
- When Space Efficiency is Necessary — Imagine if video websites were manuscript only, where the text from all the videos was typed out on the page. Not only would that be incredible boring, it would also eat up 10x-15x the space on the page. Now, of course, video uses MB, whereas text uses KB. But the disk space isn’t a concern today, for the most part.
“how-to” videos extremely valuable. Whether brewing a cup of coffee via French Press or changing your own motor oil, videos that describe and visually detail a process provide more value than images can.Here are some practical suggestions for appropriate use of video on the Web:
- Use video efficiently. Keep most clips around 3 minutes in duration.
- Don’t use video just because you can or because the competitor did.
- Make video an option, along with text or .pdf when available.
- If no value is gained by using video in a scenario, question the necessity of using it.
Some current examples of good/bad mainstream video usage:
- GOOD — eHow.com | Changing your oil Short advertisement; good visual helps; space for related videos and articles.
- BAD — CNN.com There is a lot of value in the video CNN.com employs, but the fact that some news stories are only available in video format is annoying and frankly bad from a usability standpoint. Throw in the :30 advertisement, and I have to commit over 4:00 to a story that I may just want to peruse or just grab a quick detail from.
- GOOD — Inglisforcongress.com (Bob Inglis). Home page contains a YouTube video that explains the website in under 1:00, letting users know what they can do to join and contribute to the campaign. The quick, personal touch is good.
- BAD — ESPN Soccernet Video is not the main option on the page, nor is it what I ever visit the site for. Upon visiting the site, the small video is set to auto-play, which causes me to scroll back up the page and turn it off. I personally prefer either (A) video being the primary object on a page or (B) if it is secondary, link it to another page where I have more options.
Video is a good thing for the Web. But like all good things, if used poorly, it ceases to be good.
