| |||||||||||
PRINT
COMMENT
SUBSCRIBE
RSSScores of books have been written, including those by the godfather of user experience himself, Jakob Nielsen, on what good looks like in the development of an effective online user experience. But even within those recent editions that have been purportedly “updated” from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, there hasn’t really been a definitive point of view on how to best integrate the video experience/platform as a part of the whole, or, for that matter, when it is the whole, into user experience.
There are those who have argued, “Why should video be treated differently than any other content? It’s just another feature that, if placed in the hands of a good I/A person, will find its natural hierarchy on the page.” Then there are others who submit that video platforms like Brightcove, Maven and others actually require extensive usability studies to determine how to best integrate video into the overall user experience design. As video players become a more prominent feature of the home page user experience, where does activating full sight, sound and motion fit in the hierarchy of relevance, simplicity, and the creation of “delightful interactions”?
Inquiring marketers want to know… and with the integration of video on the page moving so quickly, one has to wonder, are we really ready for guidelines on this? Or do we need a bit more time to determine what good looks like? I’m sure there are loads of opinions out there, which I’d love to hear. What I find interesting to ponder is how we integrate what has traditionally been a lean-back form of content into a lean-forward environment without making it the be-all/end-all -- or sacrificing it to the rigor of those user experience designers and information architects whose adherence to Web 1.0 HTML grid-based thinking has already made certain practices “universal truths” without any real experience in what intrigues users into narrative storytelling.
These are interesting times. The Web canvas is becoming more open and dynamic, while the way we scan and process static information hasn’t changed much since the advent of the printing press. Yet we have recently discovered that online video, be it Flash or otherwise, provides brand marketers the opportunity to deliver deeper, richer stories in a more human manner than static messaging has allowed us to do for decades. As video players become more and more prevalent across the site development landscape, yes, they’ll need to be easy to find, easy to activate and easy to control. But of the many questions currently being pondered by information architects and user-experience designers in the age of video, the one that keeps me wondering is, is it really safe to assume that users are always in a “don’t make me think” mindset at the outset of the experience? What if they’re coming in not just to “accomplish” something, but actually to “discover “ something instead?
In this new world of “engagement” metrics, time spent “discovering” through features like the narratives of online video actually equates to more time spent, higher CPMs for publishers and richer information delivered to “viewsers” (the combination of “viewer” and “user”). And those are metrics that translate to better results for brand marketers.
Now that’s no excuse to make users work to find the video play button. What it does suggest is that, as we continue to integrate linear video into the static user experience, do we need to acknowledge that there are, in fact, different user mindsets for different types of content -- and which do we put first?
Then I ask myself, what would Jakob Nielsen think?
1 person recommends this article.
RSS FEEDS
As an example, perhaps there could be a universal thumbnail image that represents the availability of video content on a web page.
Clicking on the thumbnail "plus sign" opens a small player, additional clicks enable zoom-out and zoom-in changes to the player.
My point: this is perhaps one way to standardize on a flexible but predictable format that's intuitive.
It really hasn't taken that long for the standard RSS and Podcast icons to become recognized. People are learning what to expect when the click on those graphics.
David H. Deans
In regards to online video adverting I would like to introduce you to perhaps the most effective way for advertisers to get the most for their money. Rather than just taking video advertisements and bombarding users with them as soon as they hit the site, a new casual gaming website called NetWinner.com is looking at not only the experience for the users, but for the advertisers as well. This new form of online advertising is called Companion Advertising. NetWinner provides a unique advertising vehicle where video advertisements are a natural companion to the game experience, not a potential disruption. As a user is playing the game (which allows them the chance to win money and prizes) by picking numbers and waiting for the results, they are simultaneously viewing video ads off to the side. The experience goes hand in hand because the time it takes for the results of the correct matching numbers to appear is offset by the opportunity of the user to be entertained and/or informed by the advertisers’ product/service. Furthermore, if the user is interested in getting more information about the product/service, they have the ability to click on it and go to the advertisers’ website. Hence, the video advertisement becomes the companion with entertainment/informative value to the user while they are trying to win cash and prizes. The fact that the user is in a good frame of mind while playing the game, compiling points and getting closer to redeeming these points for free gifts/prizes, is a main reason that the advertisements come across in a positive light (which increases their effectiveness). Additionally, the user knows that the advertisements they are viewing are also what is ultimately paying for the cash and prizes that are being won. Since the video advertisements are continuously rolling in what is known as an “active-roll� delivery model, the user can’t help but notice them. There is no ability of the user to turn them off, only the sound can be changed. In its infancy stage, this companion-advertising that can only be found at netwinner.com, has shown some of the highest click through rates in the industry. It has shown how advertising can be your “friend� for web surfers and it has done it in a way that is not intrusive. Moreover, the netwinner way for a user to win cash and prizes is very enticing for them, as it doesn’t require them to fill out an enormous amount of information to get started and it also doesn’t require filling out surveys or jumping through an inordinate amount of loops to win something. NetWinner also rewards users for referring others to sign up by giving them points for doing so. The companion-advertising model is a netwin-win situation for all involved. Thank you for your time.
Jeff Grainger Director of Marketing Adstreams Netwinner.com
For example, a DVD producer doesn’t worry about people clicking out and skipping their content simply because they have to figure out how to use a particular menu before they get to push play? Their viewer’s mindset is completely different to that of a YouTube viewer because they are there at that point in time specifically to watch that particular content.
The same thing can happen online, if you have the right type of content!!!
This is not a shameless plug for my company, but just for a moment let’s use our content as an example:
We provide a video service that shows people’s first time extreme sports experiences (such as a tandem skydive or Bungy jump) to family and friends only moments after the experience actually happens.
Family and friends are personally invited by email to share in our customer’s life changing experience, and naturally they are very excited to watch it. Our content isn’t available anywhere else online as quickly as we can make it available, so we have the luxury of experimenting with “making users work to find the video play button�, and we use this time in various productive ways, such as , advertising, gathering users demographic information, pre buffering our videos for the best possible playback results, and generally making their experience of our content (and our advertisers) as memorable as possible.
Example: http://www.realxstream.com/?XStreamID=66428 in the USA,
Naturally, if you don’t have to fight just to engage user attention, your content has a lot more advertising potential than if you are expecting your users to click out if they have to wait for your content for a fraction of a second.
Of course, not saying that all content is equal and not every video site has this luxury, but ours is a good example of what can be achieved when people really want to access content, instead of just having it thrown at them, all you can eat style. And is a good case in point for this particular argument…
Unfortunately, too many sites make the user work to find the stop button, and I don't think they really care what Jakob Nielsen would say about that.
Nice quick piece that asks an interesting question (not what Jacob would do, but rather, how do we approach the question of of how video effects the usability of websites).
I think we're talking about a diverse set of video "experiences".
The usability of a site that is an archive of video clips seems to work fine. Rich search, push "top" content, let viewsers (your word) find what they want and then let them easily watch and share clips.
Video advertising usability is a different story.
I arrived at this page having read your article in email and thinking about adding a comment, when I arrived there was a video ad for a video ad company.
There was an interruption marketing "experience" in the middle of my content. Old model. The banner had a video of a man waiting to talk to me, just sitting there, fidgeting a bit, waiting for me to rollover. I rolled over and the banner enlarged and allowed me to interact with it inline. I watched the videos and when done went on my way. It was easy and didn't bug me too much. From a usbility perspective, everyone won. I was able to accomplish my task and I got delivered a (slightly) more compelling brand message along the way.
This brings me to my point. The winners will be the marketers + publishers who,
- smartly target content based on both my profile and my initiated context - understand how video can enhance my experience, not just catch my attention - leverage the techology within proven and emerging usability best practices
This banner didn't take me away to another site, it let me interact within my initiated context making it easy for me to both experience the ad and complete my task, beautiful. Now, if the publisher had leveraged what they know about me to match me with a marketer that had presented both compelling AND valuable content it would have been a "delightful interaction".
Thanks for the challenge and for keeping us thinking.
Marko Muellner www.measurechange.com
There seems to be three main types of content consumers. As applied to video, that further segments into 2 sub-types.
First, there are users looking for quick information. These people like to read, scan and move on. If presented with a video as another way to consume content, they may, over time, and based on when they are consuming, enjoy the video as an option. If it’s the only way to consume the content (in the context of aggregated articles and stories) they may be put off a bit.
Then there are those that are looking for something specific, and are “consumable agnostic� in their desire – they just want to get to the meat. A relevant video is just as appealing to these users as would be a story or article. For the publisher, it’s key to integrate video as a component of story telling in a contextually relevant way.
Last of the three are those looking for video. These are the tv show watchers, the AMEX card members, time wasters or, in those times when only a video can tell a hot story, ala, the Paris Hilton goes to jail saga.
The key for the latter two, to increase video’s place and relevancy, is tagging and searching. Users must be able to find what they are looking for.
Embedded video on pages is becoming more commonplace. I can understand why marketers like it. It’s usually going to be “above the fold� and in the user’s face. Some play audio for higher CPMs, others are user initiated audio. Each site will have to weigh the pros and cons on that one. What I think is important to realize is that when the video is (or ad/pre roll) on a site that users care about the content, perhaps even passionately, that the brand exposure, even if never clicked or watched fully, is very valuable. Over time this helps with recall, recognition and can affect purchase/action behavior.
It’s going to be hard to see a world without a growing video presence online. It will become more embedded, more immersive and hopefully, more targeted to the users’ desires or actions. At the end of the day, it just needs to be balanced.
I noticed that unlike most things I land on at MediaPost, this page had no in your face video ads in between the text and no "noisy" ads on the top of the page. I liked the page much better as a result. I think rather than asking what Jacob thinks (which you can do, but it will probably cost you!) you could ask MediaPost what kind of feedback they get on those ads from its readers. Here's my feedback:
I find them annoying because all I wanted to do was "read" what the writer's here are writing. But in this, I am certainly a focus group of one. When I am reading, I do not like to be distracted by video and literal noise (I'm thinking of the ad with the fish bubbles which defaults to "sound on"). Though the Forbes ad running on this page as I read it has "movment", it isn't nearly as annoying to me as the viewpoint and unicast ads...and there were no sounds eminating from the ads either.
I refreshed the page and that changed, so just my good fortune on the first try. : ) I'd be interested to know what other MediaPost readers think of those ads -- I'd be even more interested if I worked for MediaPost...