> Sure, the video you link to is more descriptive, but it's a lot to ask of a visitor to click through and watch a separate video.

▲

triceratops an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's a 2 minute video. It gets the point across faster than any blog post.

▲

chmod775 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it’s not a lot to ask.

That is assuming the user doesn’t first have to offer incense and whisper a fervent prayer to the Omniscient Deity of USB Devices to seize control of the mouse and click the link in divine intervention.

However for most of us that is uncessary and clicking a link to a video requires no effort at all.

▲

halostatue 3 hours ago | parent [-]

TL;DW.

I don't watch video complaints. I don't watch most YT videos except at 2x because by time the person who made the video got started saying what they're trying to say, I could have finished a text article version of the same thing.

Most people speak way too slowly for me to be interested in what they're saying, especially when they could have written an article that is more information dense and it typically shorter in any case.

Videos have value for enhancing reports, but are mostly useless as reports themselves.

So yeah, it's too damned much to ask to watch a video.

	▲	alterom 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You know the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words"? So yeah, a video that precisely reproduces a UI/UX bug is worth more than anything you can write about it. Showing exactly what the problem was is much better than describing the problem. It's a lossy conversion that adds noise. Saying this as someone who doesn't watch videos normally.
	▲	chmod775 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Sorry. That comment is too long. Didn't read. Hope you didn't waste much time on it. Jokes aside, that video is 2:23 long and it gets to the point within the first 33 seconds, at which point they have demonstrated the issue. You're being beyond incredibly silly right now.