Thanks for such through feedback. Let me address a few points:
"1. The short video could come closer to the long one without actually becoming longer itself if the content is presented a bit faster. I know what you might be thinking, this is too complex to present it faster. I agree, but I believe a sweet spot could be found where it isn't too fast-paced to understand, but also not too slow to make the video too long. Here is an example of a video in which complex content is also presented only through a narrative and images...."
I'd like to present it faster, but the technical content and its novelty to most viewers makes that difficult. What I've done is slow down the presentation so that people have the time to digest these new thoughts, at a documentary movie style pace, or a college lecture pace, rather than a quick YouTube video pace.
I looked at the example video. That's a style that can work for a small percentage of viewers, but not (?) for the majority and not for the target audience. The target is journalists and in particular, fact-checkers. They like to see text, so there's plenty of text in the video. They like to see deep treatment rather than quick treatment, so there's plenty of that. Etc.
"2. The quotes are insightful, but I would either read them out, or at least paraphrased if too long, to keep the viewers' attention."
You are now the third person who's said this, so I agree. I will try to make this change.
"3. Please don't get me wrong, I really really really love Dvořák, but I consider it's simply not the right musical choice for the video. It is a beautiful and inspiring piece, but in the end, the purpose of the video is to make people feel a sense of urgency on restoring democracy, and the music does quite the opposite, it makes you feel relaxed, calm and safe."
Thanks. Dvorak's New World Symphony appears when the video presents new ideas that are promising and could lead to a new world. Elsewhere there's plenty of dark foreboding music. It's like the way films are scored. The music fits the emotion of the moment.
"4. Contrary to what I've been arguing about the speed and music choice, I absolutely love the use of both timing, images and music at min 1:55. It lets every big problem really sink in... it just might be too slow for the short video, but for the long version, I really like it!"
Thanks. Martha says two things in the video are especially strong: the list of unsolved problems section, and, at around 19:40, the list of strategies and fallacies in the purple box. If people can learn to spot those 5 deception strategies and 6 common fallacies, they can no longer be fooled.
"5. Overall, I would avoid putting images on top of other images to keep it clean. Again, for this, I think you could get inspired from the video I linked in point 1."
Not sure what you mean here. Could you explain?
"6. Similar to the last point, I would avoid writing on top of the pictures as in min. 8:30. The labels are good, but I think those would be better appreciated if on top or below the pictures, or in a text box with solid background."
I think you're referring to the "A Healthy Democracy" diagram. I don't understand what "on top or below the pictures" means. I do understand "or in a text box with solid background." Transparent boxes are common in modern printed or TV ads. They keep the boxes from covering up the background image completely, and thus interrupt viewers thinking less. But they can be harder to read. I tried to adjust the transparency to strike a good balance.
"7. Personally, I find very it insightful how to mark up an article, but: maybe we should discuss if that is necessary for the audience of this video. On the one hand, that info is central, because that is kind of the "product" that Thwink is trying to sell, but... maybe people just need to get convinced of what the output is, and how it will help them and the world. The use of the software is the 'behind the scenes' maybe (& hopefully) some people will be interested, and the information should be available for those who are, but on a different place. This is the place to exclusively sell the idea, get people 'hooked in'. The details can come later. Now if the conclusion is that it is important enough to include (and I'm not closed to that option), then I think it is necessary to find a way to present it faster. When I was showing the video to my mum she was getting too distracted even though I was there telling her where to put attention!"
Showing how the tool works is the highlight of the story. It's a new tool, an exciting new technology that can make all the difference. If we don't show the tool, then all we can talk about is theory.
In addition, the audience is journalists and in particular, fact-checkers. Right now lots of technical innovation is appearing every week in the fact-check industry. I receive a weekly newsletter that always has a few new pieces of fact-check technology. Our tool becomes one more piece of new technology. Fact-checkers are looking for this sort of thing, because it's making a big difference already.
Now for your second point, it needs to be presented faster. I've addressed that in item one. This is subtle. I thwink lots of people will want it to be presented faster. But if you did that, the same people would find it hard to follow. There are reasons documentaries are slow paced, and action films are fast paced. The first has thoughtful material that must be digested, and the second doesn't. Many viewers, especially young folks, have become conditioned to expect everything to be fast paced. But even they seem to not mind the slower pace of documentaries when they watch one.
Again, thanks!
