Philosophy question about media websites/video feeds

All:

First, let me apologize if this isn't considered the proper place for
this post, but this is the closest group I could find that seems to
have a relationship to the question I'd like to ask.

I'm a developer, and as I browse other "large" commercial/media
websites, I'm observing an increasing trend toward forcing a
video/audio stream just for hitting a site's homepage. ESPN is big on
this - you used to have to download a separate item for it. Now it
starts automatically whether you want it or not. Even some local TV
station homepages are starting this practice. I find it highly
annoying, and as a developer I wouldn't try to foist that on one of my
site's viewers.

What's the general opinion of those here about this? I think its a)
incredibly rude and presumptuous, and b) a waste of bandwidth. I've
heard some webmasters are being told that this is the wave of the
future, and I think that's nonsense.

I've encountered a few other comments/blogs/whatever on this, and it
may have been discussed here previously - if so, my apologies. What
I've found so far seems to agree that its a frowned-upon (or at least
disliked) practice; one such example is
http://thedavechronicles.blogspot.com

Thoughts?

Thanks,
-intrepid

pls reply to group; email here is dead.

intrepid_dw (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

All:
(snip)
I'm a developer, and as I browse other "large" commercial/media
websites, I'm observing an increasing trend toward forcing a
video/audio stream just for hitting a site's homepage. ESPN is big on
this - you used to have to download a separate item for it. Now it
starts automatically whether you want it or not. Even some local TV
station homepages are starting this practice. I find it highly
annoying, and as a developer I wouldn't try to foist that on one of my
site's viewers.

What's the general opinion of those here about this? I think its a)
incredibly rude and presumptuous, and b) a waste of bandwidth. I've
heard some webmasters are being told that this is the wave of the
future, and I think that's nonsense.

intrepid,

I'd say you have a good head on your shoulders.

Chris Beall

(snip)

In article <1140395686.765222.320560 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
intrepid_dw (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

I'm a developer, and as I browse other "large" commercial/media
websites, I'm observing an increasing trend toward forcing a
video/audio stream just for hitting a site's homepage.

I thought perhaps I was the only person annoyed by this. However I have
switched plugins off, so I don't encounter video or audio a lot. Of
course, some sites don't seem to work, so I go to the next site on my
list.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

In article <1140395686.765222.320560 (AT) o13g2000cwo (DOT) googlegroups.com>, intrepid_dw writes:
[disclaimer: I'm not a pro, I just tinker around a bit with some vanity pages]

I'm a developer, and as I browse other "large" commercial/media
websites, I'm observing an increasing trend toward forcing a
video/audio stream just for hitting a site's homepage.

"Attempting to force" would be a better way to put it. I surf from a
dial-up line. Hence, I don't have (or want) any plugins that support
this sort of thing.

If somebody points me to a page that consists of nothing but Flash
or a movie or something, I just close that tab in my browser.

ESPN is big on
this - you used to have to download a separate item for it.

This might actually be reasonable -- for them. After all, they are
a television company. If they want to use TCP/IP to deliver that
kind of content (to others who are expecting it), that's fine.

On the other hand, if you also have to view the movie in order to
sign up for their service, that would be a really stupid business
decision. Would they really want to say "unless your computer has
Mb/s connectivity, we don't want your money"?

I find it highly
annoying, and as a developer I wouldn't try to foist that on one of my
site's viewers.

Thank you.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.

intrepid_dw (AT) hotmail (DOT) com wrote:

All:

First, let me apologize if this isn't considered the proper place for
this post, but this is the closest group I could find that seems to
have a relationship to the question I'd like to ask.

I'm a developer, and as I browse other "large" commercial/media
websites, I'm observing an increasing trend toward forcing a
video/audio stream just for hitting a site's homepage. ESPN is big on
this - you used to have to download a separate item for it. Now it
starts automatically whether you want it or not. Even some local TV
station homepages are starting this practice. I find it highly
annoying, and as a developer I wouldn't try to foist that on one of my
site's viewers.

What's the general opinion of those here about this? I think its a)
incredibly rude and presumptuous, and b) a waste of bandwidth. I've
heard some webmasters are being told that this is the wave of the
future, and I think that's nonsense.

I've encountered a few other comments/blogs/whatever on this, and it
may have been discussed here previously - if so, my apologies. What
I've found so far seems to agree that its a frowned-upon (or at least
disliked) practice; one such example is
http://thedavechronicles.blogspot.com

Thoughts?

Thanks,
-intrepid

pls reply to group; email here is dead.

Part of the problem is that companies don't understand the web and its
uses properly. In many cases, web development is financed by the
marketing department and their expertise lies in flashy advertising
campaigns, so they insist the company website should have lots of 'sexy'
multimedia experiences.

Companies like Amazon (spit, but I admire their business model) have
realised that the company website should be part of the sales department
and therefore the focus should be on helping customers to purchase what
they want with the minimum of time and effort.

Would you shop in Tescos if you had to wait an extra 5 minutes in the
checkout queue to watch an advertising video?

NigelH