multimedia
It was also interesting to learn that three main multimedia products (Real Media, Windows Media, and QuickTime) all have different advantages for creators and also for users. And that both the needs of creator and audience must be considered when thinking about a project. This was totally new to me. I was aware of the various devices and that each is widely used, but I was not really aware of why a website would use one over the others. Cohen and Rosenzweig point out that Dan Arthurs of StreamingCulture, recommends historians use Windows Media, because it most people have it pre-installed on their computer. While I can understand the availability aspect of this, which I will go into a little more detail below, I cringe at the thought of choosing Windows Media because Microsoft already installed it on your computer. Especially when it seems that QuickTime may provide overall better quality to the viewer. Most websites have a link to a free download of any necessary programs anyway.
What I liked most about the discussion of video and multimedia was the authors reminder to think about the audience. They noted that there are still tens of millions of internet users who use dial up service, which greatly hinders their ability to download files quickly. It is so easy to think of how the computer has become a staple in many American homes that one can quickly over look the fact that many Americans still cannot afford a computer, let alone an expensive computer or monthly internet fees. So I think it is really important designers remember to think about all internet users, which is why perhaps it maybe worth considering Windows Media Conversely. However, what if this means possibly sacrificing the quality of your product? What is more important the quality or the accessibility of the product?
February 20th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
What is more important the quality or the accessibility of the product?
I think quality and accessibility go hand-in-hand. After all, if you have great content, but no one can find it, you may as well not have any content. However, if you have crummy content that anyone with a computer can find, how does that help anyone? I think we, as historians, should probably spend most of our time working on content and find good people to work with on the technical side to ensure accessibility.
February 21st, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Quality vs. Accessibility
I agree with Sarah’s point about quality and accessibility going hand in hand on a broad level. But on a smaller scale, like your example of Windows Media Player use over Quicktime, I think that accessibility is probably more important. I think that one wants to hook people into the topic or website with a video. If one has to go to download an entirely new player, I think many people will forego your website completely. I know that I have often not explored websites because I had to download even the simplest things like plug-ins. I felt they were not worth my while if they were not easy to navigate.