Somewhat off-topic, but related to the discussion about video vs. stills in the current media landscape: I would honestly like to feel a bit less like a dinosaur and be able to embrace video, since apparently, many people find it more appealing than written information and/or still photography. However, I fail to grasp the appeal of many online videos; this is particular true of many youtube channels, where a lot of the content is simply someone sitting in a room talking about some topic that could also easily have been written down. These days, you can hardly find any product review, tutorial or whatnot that is not in video form. Most often I just don't see the added value, instead, for me there are typically several drawbacks:
* A written article is easy to cross-read and it is easy to skip the paragraphs that are clearly not of interest, because you can usually tell in a split second what a paragraph will be about - (almost) impossible in video. Usually you have to spend much more time watching parts of the video that don't actually interest you, because skipping parts is much more cumbersome.
* Quite frequently some tiny bit of information is blown up to several minutes of video - people just don't come to the point quickly - probably because otherwise, the videos would be too short. Also, in writing you can e.g. include a table or a chart with much more in-depth information than you could include in a video. In video, many times I find that the information stays more superficial.
* You need to carry headphones with you to be able to watch videos everywhere. In public transportation, or for that matter, in any public space, where I'd have the most spare time to do so, I can't watch a video without headphones because the sound would be disturbing to other people. Leaving headphones as another bothersome item to deal with.
* I cannot process the information in my own pace but am forced to listen in the talking speed of the presenter. Therefore, I frequently find myself having to jump back a few seconds in videos because I have missed a point, couldn't follow quickly enough, or (e.g. in tutorials) want to try the things myself simultaneously, which usually takes longer than the presenter takes to show them. In an article, it is easy to have it open side by side and simply follow instructions step by step. In video, I have to hop back and forth, and end up seeing the same portion of the video over and over again (also because hopping back is almost always not on point as well).
Of course I get the appeal of video for cinematography, any action videos, music or dance videos, wedding videos, wildlife action, etc. But for youtube content of the sort "person explaining/reviewing something that doesn't inherently require motion" - could someone enlighten me what the major benefits are? Maybe I have just been missing the point. Honest question.