there are things you can communicate well in text as well as things that make more sense with visuals.

Please, stop thinking in binaries.

Articles are capable of using both. The main content can be in text, with an image, a gif or a short video or audio clip here and there to help explain if an illustration is better suited.

I wouldn't want to read a phone review that was text only, but one that has a set or two of images and video to show of the camera, a size comparison to a different phone, and you've got most of what you'd want to put in a video anyway. The rest of many youtube videos are just talking heads and stock footage. The substantive parts of many videos, the stuff that actually should be video for better information density, is rarely a majority of any given video.

Video is definitely a more engaging form of content for me, but claiming it's more effective at information transfer as compared to text is ridiculous.

▲

TylerE 3 days ago | parent [-]

And I don’t want to switch between reading and watching short video clips constantly. My brain doesn’t work that way.

▲

Telaneo 3 days ago | parent [-]

You probably don't need more than one or two video clips unless you're writing about video itself, say, comparing Ffmpeg renders or phone cameras. You certainly don't need any video for most subjects.

▲

TylerE 3 days ago | parent [-]

But that's exactly what he is talking about. He's not doing, like, car reviews.

	▲	Telaneo 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		He's doing a video about a format, not about video itself. How much of this video is comparisons of video itself? None that I could see. He's already done that video way back with his Betamax vs. VHS comparison. All the cases of him comparing the form factor, that is, the size of the casette, with something else, are easily shown with either pictures or diagrams.