Week 3 - Video Critiques

Questions to answer about each of the videos shown in the lecture:

• First impression (good or bad)
• Can I fully understand the concept?
• What questions does it raise?
• What could they do better?
• What do they do well?
• Video Content
• Is there a better way to show certain things?
• Quality of the video? Audio?

Video 1: Brisbane Parkfinder

First impression was definitely not positive. So much background noise it was difficult to concentrate on the video content itself. Subsequently I was not really able to fully understand the concept even when re-watching and focusing on just the talking its still not clear exactly what the point of the park finder is. There is a lot of technical detail about what it does and how it works, but no real reason given for why someone would want to or need to use it. 

They could definitely improve their script. At one point they mention a potential scenario of use taking your park to the dog, however this is more than halfway through the video after all the technical information. If this was right at the start it would have make the concept much clearer. There was not a lot that was done well but their actual prototype looked good and showed how users would interact with it.

Video content was the major issue, the background noise made it very difficult to concentrate on the narration and stay interested in the content. Additionally there were several cuts where the audio was a little chopped up and other places where the narrator was stumbling were left in.

Video 2: Plain English Google Docs

First impression was good. The concept was very well described and easy to pick up (partly because of previous experience with google docs). One question that it raises is at the end of the video it mentions that all previous versions of the document as saved. When at the start of the video they state that multiple copies of the file existing are the problem. Perhaps they could have re-framed the initial problem to be more about version control and data centralization. 

Story telling elements and explanation were otherwise well done. I liked the fact that the use of paper was consistent throughout the video. Also using an actual paperclip (the icon for an attachment) was a nice touch.

Audio was clear, dialogue was good. There were no jarring animations or cuts. Overall video quality was high.

Video 3: Pegasus

First impression, what is my life? I do not understand anything that is going on. I have no real idea about the concept other than it is a game of some sort, but how it is played or scored I am not sure. Any sort of explanation would have greatly improved this video.

The music is nice, The pacing suits the animation as well as the lyrics "one by one" as it seems to be a turn based game. Audio could be annoying after a while for some users, additionally it was hard to tell if the game was working correctly or not when the Pegasus tokens disappear or if there was an error with the video cutting.

Video 4: Formlabs

First impression very good. Concept was well communicated through the story and the viewers attention was immediately grabbed by the presentation of the problem. Searching for faults in this video is difficult if anything maybe the product shots are a little too long? But then it is aimed at designers so it is hard to say. I also like the way that they introduce the speakers with titles so they have a little more personality and it builds their credibility.

Overall this is a great video.

Video 5: Gauss Glasses

Another good video first impressions definitely positive. The animation almost scares me into immediately funding the project and buying some glasses. The concept was very easy to understand with the problem defined within the first thirty seconds of the video.

The question that is raises is only one of suspicion. If these lenses are so good and the technology already exists why do not we already have access to it? Or is it something that comes with lenses that you just did not know about.

Apart from that I struggled to see any areas where the video fell down, everything was done well. Potentially it was a little long and could have been more succinct with the script, but the video production and audio quality were both top notch.