Week 3: Video Critiques

During this week's lecture we watched a few more examples of video prototypes, all with varying degrees of good and not so good points. Watching and discussing these videos definitely helped to break down what works and what is less successful in a video, and hopefully I can take away the good examples and apply this to my own video.


Brisbane Park Finder

First impression
Definitely not a compelling video, the communication of the concept wasn't clear, and the production quality fairly poor.

Can you understand the concept?
By the end of the video I did understand the concept, however I don't think it was completely clear from the beginning.

What questions does it raise?
They never really addressed what the problem was, and how their product solved anything and if there is a need for this product. They didn't show the product in use much at all, so I was left wondering if they successfully built the features they described.

What could they do better?
Show the product more and scenarios of it being used. There was a super quick shot of it being used, but the rest of the video only showed the guy describing how it worked, not showing it in use. Improving the audio, there was a bit of background noise.

What do they do well?
What they showed of the Park Finder looked good.

Is there a better way to show certain things?
Showing the demonstration of the Park Finder would have been better if the audio description matched the voice over. He mentioned an example of searching in Greenslopes, however the demo showed a different suburb, which I found distracting, and therefore detracted from what he was trying to communicate.

Quality of the video/audio
The video quality seemed fine. The audio had a lot of obvious background noise.



Google Docs in Plain English

First impression
Overall I found this quite easy to follow and rated it as an example of a good video.

Can you understand the concept?
Yes it was communicated very clearly. It uses appropriate language, and uses metaphors to help the audience understand more abstract concepts, e.g Docs is a "home" for our documents. The visuals supplement the description well and further illustrate their message.

What questions does it raise?
I think it's pretty well explained.

What could they do better?
Some of the production quality was quite lo-fi, but this may have been their intention. The voiceover and pacing was a little too fast and possibly could have been slowed down a bit to help viewers take the information in.

What do they do well?
They defined a problem at the beginning the of video and told the story of a user scenario which illustrated their solution.

Is there a better way to show certain things?
They didn't show the use of an actual Google document directly, with only explaining the features of Google Docs.

Quality of the video/audioIt was well produced, and the audio was clear.


Pegasus Game

First impressionConfusion about what this game is actually about

Can you understand the concept? No at all - only that it is some kind of board game - possibly?

What questions does it raise? 

What is this game about? What are the rules? Why should I play this?

What could they do better? 

Give some explanation about what the game is about, why it should be played, how is it played. The soundtrack wasn't really appropriate, especially considering it was the only audio track it felt unnecessary and distracting.

What do they do well? The footage of the game play looks of a high quality.

Is there a better way to show certain things? The gameplay needed description, showing various moves made in the game means nothing to the audience if they don't know the objectives of the game. This could be a voiceover, or text descriptions throughout.

Quality of the video/audio 

Production wise the quality was fine.



Gauss Glasses

First impression

Pretty good overall, perhaps too long in describing the science behind it.

Can you understand the concept? 

Yes, it was explained well, the problem and solution was clearly defined.

What questions does it raise?

I wasn't sure how these glasses rate against regular glasses. Also I was wondering how accurate the dangers of the blue light is, and how these glasses rate in protecting against it (maybe that's my inner sceptic thinking). Although the way they explained the problem of blue light did make me feel concerned, albeit quite alarmed when they showed the light burning the back of the eyes.

What could they do better?

Some of the animation, such as the moving graph of the light radiation I didn't understand, it looked very scientific, but I didn't know what the significance of the data was, so this could have been illustrates better. Also including some feedback from professionals like optometrists to help give quality assurance and professional back up to their claims.

What do they do well?

They definitely sold their product and it's benefits well, and compelled me to consider buying the glasses. They showed great video of the people behind the manufacture, so that assured me that they were going to be made well.

Is there a better way to show certain things? 

Some of the animation could have been done in a more refined manner (for example the burning eye animation) and the graphs could have been shown in a more approachable way.

Quality of the video/audio 

It was really well done and professionally produced.

Overall takeaways:

• A good video should introduce the problem space at the start, and subsequently offer a solution to this problem. 

• Relate the solution back to the audience, tell them why this product benefits them. 

• Communicate clearly, so that the whole audience can understand (i.e. don't use technical jargon if your audience are laymen) 

• Use scenarios to show the context of use and explain how the product works 

• Visuals should support the audio descriptions. 

• Inferior production quality can detract from the video's message and professionalism.