Ask HN: Video as a background? Are you mad
5 comments
Being "drawn" to something is not the same as finding it useful or helpful. Certainly having the video as background is "captivating", but that means the foreground is basically useless: it's difficult to see, difficult to pay attention to, and difficult to use. The background gives you an idea of what the band is all about, and let's you watch them. But if that's the point, why have the foreground at all? Just show a video.
> Example: What if it were lots of smaller screens running the top TED shows, like what they do but more video than static.
Sure, if the point of the TED site was to make people feel vaguely happy about TED. But when I go to the TED site, it's to watch a video so that I can understand the ideas the speaker is presenting, not to get my senses filled with some kind of aesthetic vibe of TED-ness. For me, at least, your suggestion would be highly counterproductive.
> Example: What if it were lots of smaller screens running the top TED shows, like what they do but more video than static.
Sure, if the point of the TED site was to make people feel vaguely happy about TED. But when I go to the TED site, it's to watch a video so that I can understand the ideas the speaker is presenting, not to get my senses filled with some kind of aesthetic vibe of TED-ness. For me, at least, your suggestion would be highly counterproductive.
Im going to pull you up on semantics here im afraid. I specifically used the word "captivate". If I wanted to question its usefulness or helpfulness I would have maybe used one of those words.
They have a foreground so you can click links, current web browsers do not fully support links in videos.
As for the TED site, I really like how they size up and down the image, yet I find the use of the static image a waste of time. Usually that image doesn't add to who or what is being spoken about. Hence I still feel the video could work there.
I understand why you would feel its a little over the top. But I remember the first time I saw the page, I thought that was over the top.
Yet now im used to it.
They have a foreground so you can click links, current web browsers do not fully support links in videos.
As for the TED site, I really like how they size up and down the image, yet I find the use of the static image a waste of time. Usually that image doesn't add to who or what is being spoken about. Hence I still feel the video could work there.
I understand why you would feel its a little over the top. But I remember the first time I saw the page, I thought that was over the top.
Yet now im used to it.
[deleted]
I quite like it - my iPhone really hates it though.
[deleted]
Im not one for flash nor do I like sound playing in the background when you load a website.
There is something quite captivating about the use of video as a background to this bands website.
Am I having a lapse of judgement or do others who usually frown upon this find themselves strangely drawn to it?
Where else could it work?
Example: What if it were lots of smaller screens running the top TED shows, like what they do but more video than static.