Top Comments
All Comments (12)
-
Great looks but where are the sources?
-
Really well done! Love this infographics in animation mode! I would like to add this as an example in my video class i'm teaching at the local adult school.
-
The comparison of adoption speed of radio, TV, the internet and Facebook is questionable. I'm sure familiarity with the fundamentals of those technologies had something to do with those differences. (i.e. TV can be understood as radio you can see, so familiarity with TV at its birth is greater than familiarity with radio at its birth). Also, I'll bet availability of enabling technology had something to do with them (at Internet's birth, people had to think about affording dial up; but at FB's?)
-
+ Adult content
-
Is this slideshow also a video?
-
@liphos If you PsychInfo the first point you made, you would see that it's valid. Video is slower (if you skim text), but it is also more interesting to an overwhelming majority of people. There are several reasons why, but the biggest one is simply that it stimulates more senses. The written word is sadly dying
-
great & nice
-
great
The claim at 00:20 that video is 8.33 more interesting than text is bogus -- video is just 8.33 slower to digest than quickly scanning a body of text with meaningful headings.
Most of the other "facts" are also quite arguable or meaningless. But the looks are nice ;)
liphos 1 year ago 13
Not citing sources is the largest issue with video facts!
philsk8thrill 3 months ago 3