In journalism writing classes, students learn: “Show, don’t tell.” When we provide a visual, that maxim carries even more weight. The less text or audio that an image needs to be understood, the better it is.

Some photojournalists think it’s best to let photos stand alone. Some like to publish their portfolios with no captions at all. This is a pet peeve of mine: I want to know more. I always want to know who, when, and where. Always! For me this is part of authentication, which is part of what makes it journalism and not interpretive art. A photo without a caption is not journalism.

Rule 1: Include basic factual details as needed for credibility. These might appear at the end of a linear presentation (video or animation), or below or beside a still image or graphic.

Another basic difference between journalism and art is literal truth. Whether the camera is shooting video or stills, the journalist behind the camera must not direct. As soon as you tell people what to do, you’ve changed the scene from fact to fiction. Portraits are the exception; they usually require some direction from the photographer.

Rule 2: Any reasonable assumption a viewer would make must be true. When we see a portrait, we assume it was posed. When we see someone jumping, falling, or raising a flag, we do not assume it was a re-enactment.

Where does the storytelling come in? It is possible for one image to tell a story, but it may be useful to think of the single image as an iconic work (think of the World Trade Center with dark smoke billowing, or Eddie Adams’s famous image in which a Vietnamese general shoots a man in the head) — a symbol, a condensation of meaning. A child who sees Adams’s photo today sees only one man shooting another — not the whole long tragedy of the Vietnam War.

Rule 3: A visual story requires more than one image.

In his chapter about photo stories, Ken Kobré wrote: “How does a picture story differ from a collection of pictures on a topic? A picture story has a theme. Not only are the individual pictures in the story about one subject, but they also help to support one central point” (Photojournalism: The Professionals’ Approach, 6th ed., page 232).

Like Kobré, I encourage students to write a headline for their visual story even before they go out to shoot. I go further and urge them to include a subject, active verb, and object in their working headline. “Scenes from the life of a medical student” is too vague to make a good story. “Medical student confronts all-night cram sessions, microscopes, and corpses” assures me that this story has a chance to be interesting.

Rule 4: Know what the story is before you start making images for it.

Visual stories can transport us — not only to another place, but inside another person’s life.

Visual stories often leave out a lot. This is part of their power, part of what makes them so effective. The best visual stories are compact, visceral, evocative.

Visual stories should be able to stand alone and make sense on their own. That does not mean they must be complete. I think this is one of the hardest things for journalism students to negotiate. If they try to cram in too much information, the visual story stalls, dragged down by the weight. If they fail to supply sufficient information and context, the story floats loose, inconsequential, pretty but meaningless.

Rule 5: Edit ruthlessly to pare away all that is unnecessary to the essential story. Background and context can be supplied in a linked text, in other separate components.

Rule 6: Ensure that the story makes sense if it stands alone. This does not mean it has to tell everything or “show both sides.” (I put that in quotes because it’s a huge fallacy to assume there are only two sides.)

Sometimes a visual story needs illustrations, charts or graphs, maps, diagrams. One of my favorite examples of great visual storytelling is a story from National Geographic and MediaStorm that integrates still photography, video, and information graphics in a tightly edited video format: Ivory Wars: Last Stand in Zakouma. Specifically I recommend the animated map sequence that starts at about 5:33. I think you will realize this as the map animation progresses: Nothing else, in any format, would tell this segment of the story as effectively.

Telling a story entirely with graphics is different from telling a story with photos or video. This too can be journalism.

Rule 7: A visual story does not require a camera.

When I was watching a 25-minute news program a few days ago, I experienced a small moment of sheer delight that was purely visual. It keeps coming back to me. The reason the three-shot video sequence was so successful was because first it showed me something appealing (a child’s face, at 14:25), and then a fuller view of something that seemed very familiar (a kiddie Ferris wheel, at 14:30), and then it surprised me by showing something unexpected about the same subject in the previous two shots (at 14:35).

Recently I watched the film The Story of the Weeping Camel, and I noticed how often a new sequence started by showing a close-up of someone’s hands or feet (or even an extreme close-up of a face) before cutting to a wider shot that revealed what was going on. In a quiet story set in a remote rural area, where not much happens, this technique worked really well to hold my attention.

Rule 8: Show things the viewer has not seen before, or show things in a way that is unfamiliar to the viewer.

Rule 9: Keep changing what the viewer is seeing. The visual brain will become bored if the image stays the same. Vary the angle and the distance — especially if the subject remains the same!

Finally, what makes a story a story? It has to move along an arc. If it’s flat — if it’s just a sequence of images and/or facts and/or events — it does not have the shape of a story. The shape is a mountain on which we travel upwards. The storyteller conveys us up that mountain, and when we reach the top, there has to be something there for us that made the journey worthwhile.

Ira Glass calls this the moment of reflection — when we stand on top of the mountain and see something.

For me, this is a hell of a lot more helpful than telling students their stories need to have a beginning, middle, and end. What does that mean? Every person’s day has a beginning, middle, and end — that doesn’t mean there’s a story in it!

The story must start with something (a strong visual) that makes us want to go up the hill. That’s the open. Then the story must hold on to us to keep us moving up, up, up (see Rule 9, above). Ira Glass says we do this by raising questions and answering them, one after another, until we reach the top. This question-and-answer process can be done visually: Show us something that’s not usual or typical (question; see Rule 8, above) and then show us a fuller or more complete version (answer). For video, the Five Shot Method provides a template.

The top of the mountain is the climax of the story — but it’s not the end. Don’t cut us off suddenly — don’t throw us off the summit! Make sure you leave us with a sense of satisfaction, a feeling of conclusion. Bring it to a point. The closing image should make us feel like we have really reached an ending. It can give us hope, or it can convey a sense of hopelessness. It can make us feel like this story continues, or the chapter is closed. It should leave us with a feeling of some kind.

Rule 10: Tie a single string from the beginning to the end. Pull it taut and high just before the end. Then release gently, stopping at the firm final knot.

For some people, “visual storytelling” means photographs. For others, it means film or video. An epic movie such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy may spring to mind — and few would disagree with that as a fine example of visual storytelling.

In journalism writing classes, students learn: “Show, don’t tell.” When we provide a visual, that maxim carries even more weight. The less text or audio that an image needs to be understood, the better it is.

Some photojournalists think it’s best to let photos stand alone. Some like to publish their portfolios with no captions at all. This is a pet peeve of mine: I want to know more. I always want to know who, when, and where. Always! For me this is part of authentication, which is part of what makes it journalism and not interpretive art. A photo without a caption is not journalism.

Rule 1: Include basic factual details as needed for credibility. These might appear at the end of a linear presentation (video or animation), or below or beside a still image or graphic.

Another basic difference between journalism and art is literal truth. Whether the camera is shooting video or stills, the journalist behind the camera must not direct. As soon as you tell people what to do, you’ve changed the scene from fact to fiction. Portraits are the exception; they usually require some direction from the photographer.

Rule 2: Any reasonable assumption a viewer would make must be true. When we see a portrait, we assume it was posed. When we see someone jumping, falling, or raising a flag, we do not assume it was a re-enactment.

Where does the storytelling come in? It is possible for one image to tell a story, but it may be useful to think of the single image as an iconic work (think of the World Trade Center with dark smoke billowing, or Eddie Adams’s famous image in which a Vietnamese general shoots a man in the head) — a symbol, a condensation of meaning. A child who sees Adams’s photo today sees only one man shooting another — not the whole long tragedy of the Vietnam War.

Rule 3: A visual story requires more than one image.

In his chapter about photo stories, Ken Kobré wrote: “How does a picture story differ from a collection of pictures on a topic? A picture story has a theme. Not only are the individual pictures in the story about one subject, but they also help to support one central point” (Photojournalism: The Professionals’ Approach, 6th ed., page 232).

Like Kobré, I encourage students to write a headline for their visual story even before they go out to shoot. I go further and urge them to include a subject, active verb, and object in their working headline. “Scenes from the life of a medical student” is too vague to make a good story. “Medical student confronts all-night cram sessions, microscopes, and corpses” assures me that this story has a chance to be interesting.

Rule 4: Know what the story is before you start making images for it.

Visual stories can transport us — not only to another place, but inside another person’s life.

Visual stories often leave out a lot. This is part of their power, part of what makes them so effective. The best visual stories are compact, visceral, evocative.

Visual stories should be able to stand alone and make sense on their own. That does not mean they must be complete. I think this is one of the hardest things for journalism students to negotiate. If they try to cram in too much information, the visual story stalls, dragged down by the weight. If they fail to supply sufficient information and context, the story floats loose, inconsequential, pretty but meaningless.

Rule 5: Edit ruthlessly to pare away all that is unnecessary to the essential story. Background and context can be supplied in a linked text, in other separate components.

Rule 6: Ensure that the story makes sense if it stands alone. This does not mean it has to tell everything or “show both sides.” (I put that in quotes because it’s a huge fallacy to assume there are only two sides.)

Sometimes a visual story needs illustrations, charts or graphs, maps, diagrams. One of my favorite examples of great visual storytelling is a story from National Geographic and MediaStorm that integrates still photography, video, and information graphics in a tightly edited video format: Ivory Wars: Last Stand in Zakouma. Specifically I recommend the animated map sequence that starts at about 5:33. I think you will realize this as the map animation progresses: Nothing else, in any format, would tell this segment of the story as effectively.

Telling a story entirely with graphics is different from telling a story with photos or video. This too can be journalism.

Rule 7: A visual story does not require a camera.

When I was watching a 25-minute news program a few days ago, I experienced a small moment of sheer delight that was purely visual. It keeps coming back to me. The reason the three-shot video sequence was so successful was because first it showed me something appealing (a child’s face, at 14:25), and then a fuller view of something that seemed very familiar (a kiddie Ferris wheel, at 14:30), and then it surprised me by showing something unexpected about the same subject in the previous two shots (at 14:35).

Recently I watched the film The Story of the Weeping Camel, and I noticed how often a new sequence started by showing a close-up of someone’s hands or feet (or even an extreme close-up of a face) before cutting to a wider shot that revealed what was going on. In a quiet story set in a remote rural area, where not much happens, this technique worked really well to hold my attention.

Rule 8: Show things the viewer has not seen before, or show things in a way that is unfamiliar to the viewer.

Rule 9: Keep changing what the viewer is seeing. The visual brain will become bored if the image stays the same. Vary the angle and the distance — especially if the subject remains the same!

Finally, what makes a story a story? It has to move along an arc. If it’s flat — if it’s just a sequence of images and/or facts and/or events — it does not have the shape of a story. The shape is a mountain on which we travel upwards. The storyteller conveys us up that mountain, and when we reach the top, there has to be something there for us that made the journey worthwhile.

Ira Glass calls this the moment of reflection — when we stand on top of the mountain and see something.

For me, this is a hell of a lot more helpful than telling students their stories need to have a beginning, middle, and end. What does that mean? Every person’s day has a beginning, middle, and end — that doesn’t mean there’s a story in it!

The story must start with something (a strong visual) that makes us want to go up the hill. That’s the open. Then the story must hold on to us to keep us moving up, up, up (see Rule 9, above). Ira Glass says we do this by raising questions and answering them, one after another, until we reach the top. This question-and-answer process can be done visually: Show us something that’s not usual or typical (question; see Rule 8, above) and then show us a fuller or more complete version (answer). For video, the Five Shot Method provides a template.

The top of the mountain is the climax of the story — but it’s not the end. Don’t cut us off suddenly — don’t throw us off the summit! Make sure you leave us with a sense of satisfaction, a feeling of conclusion. Bring it to a point. The closing image should make us feel like we have really reached an ending. It can give us hope, or it can convey a sense of hopelessness. It can make us feel like this story continues, or the chapter is closed. It should leave us with a feeling of some kind.

Rule 10: Tie a single string from the beginning to the end. Pull it taut and high just before the end. Then release gently, stopping at the firm final knot.

1. How to shoot video interviews
2. Why does anyone major in journalism?
3. A few words about digital audio recorders
4. Recording phone calls: For reporters
5. Now printable! Reporter’s Guide to Multimedia Proficiency
6. 10 useful resources about data visualization
7. Journalists must build a personal brand: 10 tips
8. RGMP 3: Buy an audio recorder and learn to use it
9. Cheat sheet for multimedia story decisions
10. Visual storytelling tips
11. Timelines in journalism: A closer look
12. ‘Curation,’ and journalists as curators

If you find any broken links or outdated information, I’d be happy to hear about it!

Looking over my Google Analytics data today, I found that these are some of the most-visited pages on this blog:

1. How to shoot video interviews
2. Why does anyone major in journalism?
3. A few words about digital audio recorders
4. Recording phone calls: For reporters
5. Now printable! Reporter’s Guide to Multimedia Proficiency
6. 10 useful resources about data visualization
7. Journalists must build a personal brand: 10 tips
8. RGMP 3: Buy an audio recorder and learn to use it
9. Cheat sheet for multimedia story decisions
10. Visual storytelling tips
11. Timelines in journalism: A closer look
12. ‘Curation,’ and journalists as curators

If you find any broken links or outdated information, I’d be happy to hear about it!

… a lot of newspapers — perhaps cowed by their own clueless attorneys — similarly do not allow their videos to appear anywhere but on their own Websites, essentially guaranteeing that nobody outside their own geographic area will stumble upon it. This is despite the fact that newspapers can still emblazon videos with their own logos, and attach pre-roll or embedded advertising, so that they will benefit both promotionally and financially from its broad dissemination.

The context is that a user — who presumably enjoyed the video in question — reposted that video on YouTube, where it garnered more than 1 million views. Then the original publisher of the video, The Columbus Dispatch (a daily newspaper in Ohio), told YouTube to delete the video because of copyright. Naturally, YouTube complied with the request.

I wrote about this shortsighted approach to video distribution not long ago.

Lazar pinpoints several things that are wrong with the way news websites handle their videos — and some of their most appealing stories. This is something that ought to be discussed and dissected in journalism classes around the world — and in newsrooms.

One part of this is providing the background and details that viewers of the video will be curious about. This is the role of text in today’s journalism. By intelligently pairing (and linking) text stories and video stories, journalist can provide a really satisfying experience to the audience.

Oh, yes, intelligence — Lazar had a little something to say about that:

Know what you’ve got. Incredibly, the videographer waited a week after he first saw Williams — and heard his voice — to come back with a camera. More incredibly, when he did return, it was with a cheap handheld Flip cam with its awful internal mic that doesn’t filter out wind noise. Most incredibly, after he shot the video, it sat on a shelf for six weeks, waiting for “a slow news day” to make its initial appearance.

Seriously, there’s a LOT of rich material for teaching in Lazar’s post.

Great post from Jerry Lazar, posted Sunday:

… a lot of newspapers — perhaps cowed by their own clueless attorneys — similarly do not allow their videos to appear anywhere but on their own Websites, essentially guaranteeing that nobody outside their own geographic area will stumble upon it. This is despite the fact that newspapers can still emblazon videos with their own logos, and attach pre-roll or embedded advertising, so that they will benefit both promotionally and financially from its broad dissemination.

The context is that a user — who presumably enjoyed the video in question — reposted that video on YouTube, where it garnered more than 1 million views. Then the original publisher of the video, The Columbus Dispatch (a daily newspaper in Ohio), told YouTube to delete the video because of copyright. Naturally, YouTube complied with the request.

I wrote about this shortsighted approach to video distribution not long ago.

Lazar pinpoints several things that are wrong with the way news websites handle their videos — and some of their most appealing stories. This is something that ought to be discussed and dissected in journalism classes around the world — and in newsrooms.

One part of this is providing the background and details that viewers of the video will be curious about. This is the role of text in today’s journalism. By intelligently pairing (and linking) text stories and video stories, journalist can provide a really satisfying experience to the audience.

Oh, yes, intelligence — Lazar had a little something to say about that:

Know what you’ve got. Incredibly, the videographer waited a week after he first saw Williams — and heard his voice — to come back with a camera. More incredibly, when he did return, it was with a cheap handheld Flip cam with its awful internal mic that doesn’t filter out wind noise. Most incredibly, after he shot the video, it sat on a shelf for six weeks, waiting for “a slow news day” to make its initial appearance.

Seriously, there’s a LOT of rich material for teaching in Lazar’s post.

This post is really about how journalism organizations could use video intelligently:

1. Embedding
2. Linking
3. Sharing
4. Full screen
5. Downloads
6. Engagement
7. Promote other pages and stories

I spend a lot of time speaking (and thinking) about online video — both journalism video and the broader YouTube varieties. When we think about how people use online video — and by “people” I mean mostly North Americans in the college and university student age group — we absolutely must consider sharing.

How young people find out about videos (and — let’s face it — a large portion of all news and information) is because one or more of their friends posted a link on Facebook, or shared it in some other way that brought it to their attention.

It doesn’t take too much intelligence to conclude that it’s very important to make it very easy to share the videos that you produce.

The video embedded above (from the Toronto Star) won an award at this year’s Online News Association annual conference, and I really love the way it tells the story in a manner that can grab the attention of almost anyone — even if you have no particular interest in Africa or in windmills.

Embedding: I had to install an extra plug-in to embed that video here (and on a free WordPress.com blog, I would not be able to embed it). That’s one consideration — if a video is on YouTube or Vimeo, it can be easily embedded almost anywhere, in any kind of blog, and on Facebook. Make it easy for people to embed your video in WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr, and anywhere.

Linking: From the embedded video above, you can’t view the original. There’s no link. That’s one consideration about linking, and here’s another — the video is like an appetizer to a bigger, more detailed story. That’s often true of online journalism videos, and often there is a fuller treatment in a text story, or even a big package of related features. But how will anyone ever find those other pieces? Even at the Toronto Star’s website, this video does not appear on the same Web page with the text story! (Yes, there is a link. But it’s asking people to click and wait, and that’s not necessary.)

Sharing: These cute little buttons make sharing on Twitter, Facebook, etc., simple — this is essential.

Lots of journalism sites are missing the boat on sharing. Earlier today I watched this video from GlobalPost: On Location: Cairo – Egypt’s pre-election crackdown (excellent work by UF grad Jon Jensen). On the stand-alone video page, it has NO options for embedding and NO options for sharing. (Note: Some GlobalPost stories have been “Liked” more than 1,000 times via Facebook.)

I had to make a screen capture from the video and upload it and link it to provide you the incentive you see above (an image that will take you to the video), and most people just are not going to do that much work to share your videos.

Journalism videos SHOULD be embedded and SHOULD be shared, but they need to LINK BACK to the journalism, to the original. The video is a promo for the rest of the story. The video is a tease, an entry point to MORE. The video should BRING people TO your site.

Does this mean online videos should not include pre-roll advertising? Maybe.

Full screen: From what I’ve seen, young people always make a video full screen if it’s possible to do it. Some videos look great full screen, and many do not. Of course, there are bandwidth constraints, etc. I’m just saying we should consider how the videos look when blown up to a width of 1200 pixels — or larger.

Downloads: If I could download the windmill video and keep it on my iPhone, I would show it to people. Too bad — the Toronto Star does not allow me to download it. If more journalism organizations treated video as (downloadable) podcasts, they might get a lot more leverage out of the video work.

Engagement: The windmill video above has some non-standard enhancements to the storytelling, and I think they work fantastically well to grab and hold the viewer’s attention. Usually I feel uncomfortable about using music in a journalistic video — I’m concerned that it takes away from the journalism, the credibility, the realism. In this case, however, I just love the music because it really does enhance the story. (Too many videos use bland music loops that add nothing.)

Most people are quick to click away from a video if it fails to engage them — 20 percent of viewers will quit a video in the first 10 seconds (source; from analyst firm Visible Measures). To me that says the crucial characteristic of every video is a strong opening. Grab people immediately; guarantee that they are going to see something interesting.

The windmill video is not too long (3 min. 10 sec.). It does not try to tell us everything. That’s why we have the text story.

Video as promo: Increasing page views

Online video is immensely popular, especially with younger Internet users, and its popularity is still increasing. That’s the reason to think about it more, and figure out effective ways to use it to bring good stories to people’s attention.

Consider the two videos linked here: The story about William and the windmills can be bringing viewers to the Toronto Star for years (because it’s not tied to any breaking news), but it ought to be linked better — not only to the Star’s text story but also to other sites and pages (inside the Star and outside) — about NGOs and Africa and Malawi and the 2007 TED Talk that introduced William Kamkwamba to the world and the book and the blog. A video with long legs is worth extra time and effort — in production AND in promotion. (Educators: Show your students the TED video and the Toronto Star video and discuss storytelling!)

The GlobalPost video about current elections, on the other hand, has a short shelf life — nevertheless, it could be linked to a zillion other stories related to Egypt and the region. The BBC has always been my exemplar for this kind of cross-linking (and self-promotion); see this example: Egypt holds parliamentary poll (two insets within the story: Related Stories and Parliamentary Vote). Why doesn’t GlobalPost have links like those on its video page? Why squander that opportunity?

If you’re not familiar with GlobalPost, read this from Nieman Journalism Lab (November 2010).

Update (Dec. 1, 2010): If you thought anything in this post was good, you should read Will Sullivan’s 15 reasons why it’s time to abandon your corporate video player and just go with YouTube (Oct. 19, 2010). Will is the interactive director at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and right now he’s in the midst of a fellowship at the Reynolds Journalism Institute, at the University of Missouri. If you’re in online journalism and you don’t know who Will is, you should.

I thought about titling this post “Another stupid way news sites waste time and effort by failing to understand the Web and how people use it,” but I thought maybe that was far too broad, since it covers so many things.

This post is really about how journalism organizations could use video intelligently:

1. Embedding
2. Linking
3. Sharing
4. Full screen
5. Downloads
6. Engagement
7. Promote other pages and stories

I spend a lot of time speaking (and thinking) about online video — both journalism video and the broader YouTube varieties. When we think about how people use online video — and by “people” I mean mostly North Americans in the college and university student age group — we absolutely must consider sharing.

How young people find out about videos (and — let’s face it — a large portion of all news and information) is because one or more of their friends posted a link on Facebook, or shared it in some other way that brought it to their attention.

It doesn’t take too much intelligence to conclude that it’s very important to make it very easy to share the videos that you produce.

The video embedded above (from the Toronto Star) won an award at this year’s Online News Association annual conference, and I really love the way it tells the story in a manner that can grab the attention of almost anyone — even if you have no particular interest in Africa or in windmills.

Embedding: I had to install an extra plug-in to embed that video here (and on a free WordPress.com blog, I would not be able to embed it). That’s one consideration — if a video is on YouTube or Vimeo, it can be easily embedded almost anywhere, in any kind of blog, and on Facebook. Make it easy for people to embed your video in WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr, and anywhere.

Linking: From the embedded video above, you can’t view the original. There’s no link. That’s one consideration about linking, and here’s another — the video is like an appetizer to a bigger, more detailed story. That’s often true of online journalism videos, and often there is a fuller treatment in a text story, or even a big package of related features. But how will anyone ever find those other pieces? Even at the Toronto Star’s website, this video does not appear on the same Web page with the text story! (Yes, there is a link. But it’s asking people to click and wait, and that’s not necessary.)

Sharing: These cute little buttons make sharing on Twitter, Facebook, etc., simple — this is essential.

Lots of journalism sites are missing the boat on sharing. Earlier today I watched this video from GlobalPost: On Location: Cairo – Egypt’s pre-election crackdown (excellent work by UF grad Jon Jensen). On the stand-alone video page, it has NO options for embedding and NO options for sharing. (Note: Some GlobalPost stories have been “Liked” more than 1,000 times via Facebook.)

I had to make a screen capture from the video and upload it and link it to provide you the incentive you see above (an image that will take you to the video), and most people just are not going to do that much work to share your videos.

Journalism videos SHOULD be embedded and SHOULD be shared, but they need to LINK BACK to the journalism, to the original. The video is a promo for the rest of the story. The video is a tease, an entry point to MORE. The video should BRING people TO your site.

Does this mean online videos should not include pre-roll advertising? Maybe.

Full screen: From what I’ve seen, young people always make a video full screen if it’s possible to do it. Some videos look great full screen, and many do not. Of course, there are bandwidth constraints, etc. I’m just saying we should consider how the videos look when blown up to a width of 1200 pixels — or larger.

Downloads: If I could download the windmill video and keep it on my iPhone, I would show it to people. Too bad — the Toronto Star does not allow me to download it. If more journalism organizations treated video as (downloadable) podcasts, they might get a lot more leverage out of the video work.

Engagement: The windmill video above has some non-standard enhancements to the storytelling, and I think they work fantastically well to grab and hold the viewer’s attention. Usually I feel uncomfortable about using music in a journalistic video — I’m concerned that it takes away from the journalism, the credibility, the realism. In this case, however, I just love the music because it really does enhance the story. (Too many videos use bland music loops that add nothing.)

Most people are quick to click away from a video if it fails to engage them — 20 percent of viewers will quit a video in the first 10 seconds (source; from analyst firm Visible Measures). To me that says the crucial characteristic of every video is a strong opening. Grab people immediately; guarantee that they are going to see something interesting.

The windmill video is not too long (3 min. 10 sec.). It does not try to tell us everything. That’s why we have the text story.

Video as promo: Increasing page views

Online video is immensely popular, especially with younger Internet users, and its popularity is still increasing. That’s the reason to think about it more, and figure out effective ways to use it to bring good stories to people’s attention.

Consider the two videos linked here: The story about William and the windmills can be bringing viewers to the Toronto Star for years (because it’s not tied to any breaking news), but it ought to be linked better — not only to the Star’s text story but also to other sites and pages (inside the Star and outside) — about NGOs and Africa and Malawi and the 2007 TED Talk that introduced William Kamkwamba to the world and the book and the blog. A video with long legs is worth extra time and effort — in production AND in promotion. (Educators: Show your students the TED video and the Toronto Star video and discuss storytelling!)

The GlobalPost video about current elections, on the other hand, has a short shelf life — nevertheless, it could be linked to a zillion other stories related to Egypt and the region. The BBC has always been my exemplar for this kind of cross-linking (and self-promotion); see this example: Egypt holds parliamentary poll (two insets within the story: Related Stories and Parliamentary Vote). Why doesn’t GlobalPost have links like those on its video page? Why squander that opportunity?

If you’re not familiar with GlobalPost, read this from Nieman Journalism Lab (November 2010).

Update (Dec. 1, 2010): If you thought anything in this post was good, you should read Will Sullivan’s 15 reasons why it’s time to abandon your corporate video player and just go with YouTube (Oct. 19, 2010). Will is the interactive director at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and right now he’s in the midst of a fellowship at the Reynolds Journalism Institute, at the University of Missouri. If you’re in online journalism and you don’t know who Will is, you should.

After the panel I managed to grab two of the panelists in the hallway for quick interviews. First up, Rob Baker of Ushahidi:

Next, Mark Frohardt of Internews:

I missed my chance to talk with Robert Soden, a senior GIS developer at Development Seed, who gave an inspiring presentation about OpenStreetMap.

It’s interesting to think of the ways that crowdsourced information linked to maps could be used in conjunction with reporting stories. Any community problem such as bad roads could be documented via text messages from members of the public.

Here are a couple of tools I’ve discovered that make it possible for NGOs or community media to put SMS text messaging to use for communication with people who do not have Internet access:

• FrontlineSMS turns any computer and a mobile phone (or modem) into “a two-way group messaging hub.” It works anywhere with a mobile signal.
• Freedom Fone “makes it easy to build voice menus, run SMS polls, receive SMS messages and manage voice messages.” The focus is on SMS polls and receipt of SMS messages.

Linking SMS to databases and maps to serve communities — powerful tools. But as Mark Frohardt says in the interview (above), they’ll be MORE powerful if they are connected to journalism.

While I was attending the annual Online News Association conference a week ago, one of several great panels I sat in on was titled “From Earthquakes to Coups: Tools for Crisis Reporting.” I’ve been interested in crisis mapping and other crowdsourced efforts during disasters ever since I learned how valuable these were after the earthquake in Haiti earlier this year.

After the panel I managed to grab two of the panelists in the hallway for quick interviews. First up, Rob Baker of Ushahidi:

Next, Mark Frohardt of Internews:

I missed my chance to talk with Robert Soden, a senior GIS developer at Development Seed, who gave an inspiring presentation about OpenStreetMap.

It’s interesting to think of the ways that crowdsourced information linked to maps could be used in conjunction with reporting stories. Any community problem such as bad roads could be documented via text messages from members of the public.

Here are a couple of tools I’ve discovered that make it possible for NGOs or community media to put SMS text messaging to use for communication with people who do not have Internet access:

• FrontlineSMS turns any computer and a mobile phone (or modem) into “a two-way group messaging hub.” It works anywhere with a mobile signal.
• Freedom Fone “makes it easy to build voice menus, run SMS polls, receive SMS messages and manage voice messages.” The focus is on SMS polls and receipt of SMS messages.

Linking SMS to databases and maps to serve communities — powerful tools. But as Mark Frohardt says in the interview (above), they’ll be MORE powerful if they are connected to journalism.

Recently a student showed me this video, and I noticed that at about 1 min. 30 sec., it illustrates the story arc perfectly!

The opening has elements that grab our attention (like any good opening): While we see and read the title (“The Annoying Orange”) at the 3-second mark, we hear a voice saying, “Hey, Apple!” This raises as many as three questions: Who is speaking? What is “Apple”? Why is this story called “The Annoying Orange”?

At 6 seconds, two of our questions are answered when we see the orange; 3 seconds later, we see the apple. Take note of how fast our questions are answered.

At 20 seconds, the orange makes a lame joke, answering another question: “What does he want?”

The orange continues his taunts, each one lasting only a few seconds. The apple sounds more and more annoyed.We are traveling in a straight, unbroken line up to the climax.

At about 50 seconds, we get a somewhat different visual from the orange that works to stave off boredom for the viewer.

Around 1:06, tension is introduced as the orange tries to keep quiet for 3 seconds, at the apple’s request.

At 1:12, the climax begins! (Cut to a great reaction shot at 1:14, and another one at 1:17.)

At 1:24, the resolution. At 1:28, the end.

Let’s look at storytelling again. I always use this diagram to show students how to structure a very short video story or audio slideshow (120 seconds):

Recently a student showed me this video, and I noticed that at about 1 min. 30 sec., it illustrates the story arc perfectly!

The opening has elements that grab our attention (like any good opening): While we see and read the title (“The Annoying Orange”) at the 3-second mark, we hear a voice saying, “Hey, Apple!” This raises as many as three questions: Who is speaking? What is “Apple”? Why is this story called “The Annoying Orange”?

At 6 seconds, two of our questions are answered when we see the orange; 3 seconds later, we see the apple. Take note of how fast our questions are answered.

At 20 seconds, the orange makes a lame joke, answering another question: “What does he want?”

The orange continues his taunts, each one lasting only a few seconds. The apple sounds more and more annoyed.We are traveling in a straight, unbroken line up to the climax.

At about 50 seconds, we get a somewhat different visual from the orange that works to stave off boredom for the viewer.

Around 1:06, tension is introduced as the orange tries to keep quiet for 3 seconds, at the apple’s request.

At 1:12, the climax begins! (Cut to a great reaction shot at 1:14, and another one at 1:17.)

At 1:24, the resolution. At 1:28, the end.

What’s more important, I think, is that among people who have broadband Internet access at home, 75 percent watch online videos (source). Moreover, when the Pew Internet researchers looked at all the people in their 2009 survey who do watch video online, they found that 89 percent have broadband.

Not a shock, you say? Fine. But what does it mean? Like the growth of radio, and then television, the growth of online video is fueled by access to technology. Television devices were not always as common as they are now; like television, broadband continues to expand.

Don’t ignore the history of home video viewing:

In the early days of the video business a number of tapes from non-mainstream producers became widely available, but these were largely pornography and low-grade slasher films. Even these disappeared as the Mom and Pop video stores were displaced by the clean corporate hegemony of Blockbuster Video and other chain distributors. (source)

People watch what is available to them, easy to get, and not overpriced.

People also tend to hop on the bandwagon of popular interest, the flavor of the week. CNN’s October 2009 interview with the family of the “balloon boy,” for example, “was viewed more than 2.5 million times that week” (source). These videos rise and fall rapidly — 91 percent of YouTube’s top videos don’t stay in the top ranks for more than one week. (See: Top 10 YouTube Videos of All Time.)

In analyzing the most viewed news-related videos on YouTube in 2009, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that the “news agenda on YouTube rarely coincided with that of the mainstream press”:

In only eight of the 49 weeks studied was the top video about the same subject that also led the traditional media. Of those eight occasions, three of them involved footage of discussing the health care reform bill (often with contentious opposition), and two of them were videos about the protests in Iran. (source)

That tells us that people are seeking out stories that the mainstream media are not providing. I think that’s encouraging — it means the public does want news video, and is not only looking for a good laugh.

PEJ concluded that the top videos usually had “a visual and dynamic quality that makes people want to share them with other people.”

Share. With other people. That’s something we in journalism ought to be thinking about. Not to pander, but to evaluate our storytelling. When I hear a good story, I do want to share it.

Are most journalism videos good enough to share?

The percentage of U.S. Internet users who said they watch news video online did increase from 2007 to 2009 (from 37 to 43 percent) — even though that was a smaller increase than for other types on online videos (source). Comedy and humorous videos saw the biggest leap, from 31 to 50 (percentage of Internet users who said they had watched that type).

But note, sports video online went from 14 to 21 percent — less than half the viewers for news!

How many online news operations are putting the lion’s share of their video effort into producing sports videos?

Among the 18–29 age group, humorous/comedy video viewing far outstrips news video viewing — but note, 56 percent in that age group said they have watched news video online. (Only 34 percent have watched sports video online.) Note too that only 19 percent in this age group have uploaded video (source) — squashing the widely held misconception that all young Americans are technical wizards.

I saw a lot of evidence in the PEJ report about YouTube that people are hungry for news video. For example:

• “In January 2009, the most viewed clip was Obama’s inaugural address while the second video was raw footage of the US Airlines plane that safely landed in the Hudson River without incurring any significant injuries.”
• “More than a quarter (26%) of the top five most watched news videos in a given week were about things that happened overseas. Many of them were in foreign languages and were about issues that received virtually no attention in the American press or elsewhere in English-language social media.”
• “After international events, the next largest subject on YouTube was government with 20%. More than half of those (11%) involved President Obama or his administration in some capacity … [e.g.] his first interview with the Arab television station Al-Arabiya.”
• “One of the unique aspects of YouTube is the ability of users to view raw footage that is not edited or posted by a news organization. Many of the most viewed news videos on YouTube are of this nature. For example, for two consecutive weeks in September, the most viewed video was a first-person clip from a demonstration in Pittsburgh surrounding the G20 summit where an unidentified protestor is forced into a car by three men dressed in camouflage.”

Just because comedy or humorous videos are the most popular among U.S. adults (source) does not mean journalists should wring their hands and despair about public tastes.

What’s more important, I think, is that among people who have broadband Internet access at home, 75 percent watch online videos (source). Moreover, when the Pew Internet researchers looked at all the people in their 2009 survey who do watch video online, they found that 89 percent have broadband.

Not a shock, you say? Fine. But what does it mean? Like the growth of radio, and then television, the growth of online video is fueled by access to technology. Television devices were not always as common as they are now; like television, broadband continues to expand.

Don’t ignore the history of home video viewing:

In the early days of the video business a number of tapes from non-mainstream producers became widely available, but these were largely pornography and low-grade slasher films. Even these disappeared as the Mom and Pop video stores were displaced by the clean corporate hegemony of Blockbuster Video and other chain distributors. (source)

People watch what is available to them, easy to get, and not overpriced.

People also tend to hop on the bandwagon of popular interest, the flavor of the week. CNN’s October 2009 interview with the family of the “balloon boy,” for example, “was viewed more than 2.5 million times that week” (source). These videos rise and fall rapidly — 91 percent of YouTube’s top videos don’t stay in the top ranks for more than one week. (See: Top 10 YouTube Videos of All Time.)

In analyzing the most viewed news-related videos on YouTube in 2009, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that the “news agenda on YouTube rarely coincided with that of the mainstream press”:

In only eight of the 49 weeks studied was the top video about the same subject that also led the traditional media. Of those eight occasions, three of them involved footage of discussing the health care reform bill (often with contentious opposition), and two of them were videos about the protests in Iran. (source)

That tells us that people are seeking out stories that the mainstream media are not providing. I think that’s encouraging — it means the public does want news video, and is not only looking for a good laugh.

PEJ concluded that the top videos usually had “a visual and dynamic quality that makes people want to share them with other people.”

Share. With other people. That’s something we in journalism ought to be thinking about. Not to pander, but to evaluate our storytelling. When I hear a good story, I do want to share it.

Are most journalism videos good enough to share?

The percentage of U.S. Internet users who said they watch news video online did increase from 2007 to 2009 (from 37 to 43 percent) — even though that was a smaller increase than for other types on online videos (source). Comedy and humorous videos saw the biggest leap, from 31 to 50 (percentage of Internet users who said they had watched that type).

But note, sports video online went from 14 to 21 percent — less than half the viewers for news!

How many online news operations are putting the lion’s share of their video effort into producing sports videos?

Among the 18–29 age group, humorous/comedy video viewing far outstrips news video viewing — but note, 56 percent in that age group said they have watched news video online. (Only 34 percent have watched sports video online.) Note too that only 19 percent in this age group have uploaded video (source) — squashing the widely held misconception that all young Americans are technical wizards.

I saw a lot of evidence in the PEJ report about YouTube that people are hungry for news video. For example:

• “In January 2009, the most viewed clip was Obama’s inaugural address while the second video was raw footage of the US Airlines plane that safely landed in the Hudson River without incurring any significant injuries.”
• “More than a quarter (26%) of the top five most watched news videos in a given week were about things that happened overseas. Many of them were in foreign languages and were about issues that received virtually no attention in the American press or elsewhere in English-language social media.”
• “After international events, the next largest subject on YouTube was government with 20%. More than half of those (11%) involved President Obama or his administration in some capacity … [e.g.] his first interview with the Arab television station Al-Arabiya.”
• “One of the unique aspects of YouTube is the ability of users to view raw footage that is not edited or posted by a news organization. Many of the most viewed news videos on YouTube are of this nature. For example, for two consecutive weeks in September, the most viewed video was a first-person clip from a demonstration in Pittsburgh surrounding the G20 summit where an unidentified protestor is forced into a car by three men dressed in camouflage.”

1. 21 examples of Flash journalism
2. A few words about digital audio recorders
3. Now printable! Reporter’s Guide to Multimedia Proficiency
4. Recording phone calls: For reporters
5. Why does anyone major in journalism?
6. What you should know about HTML5 today
7. How to shoot video interviews
8. Thoughts about video editing software

If you missed any of these, enjoy! (Evidence of the long tail: No. 4 and No. 7 were written and posted in 2008!)

If you feel like suggesting a topic for a new post, please do!

According to Google Analytics, this is what you’ve been reading here (from Dec. 1, 2009, up to today):

1. 21 examples of Flash journalism
2. A few words about digital audio recorders
3. Now printable! Reporter’s Guide to Multimedia Proficiency
4. Recording phone calls: For reporters
5. Why does anyone major in journalism?
6. What you should know about HTML5 today
7. How to shoot video interviews
8. Thoughts about video editing software

If you missed any of these, enjoy! (Evidence of the long tail: No. 4 and No. 7 were written and posted in 2008!)

If you feel like suggesting a topic for a new post, please do!

This is a big deal not only because Apple — in its full-out war against Adobe — has declared Flash video to be a non-starter and crowned H.264 the online-video heir apparent, but also because H.264 is no more open, really, than Flash (FLV and F4V) video.

I wrote about this video war in April: What you should know about HTML5 today. What’s at stake is the format for all video on the Web — because, as Lawrence Lessig wrote in 1999, “Code is law.”

When HTML5 is fully baked and comes out of the oven, we will be stuck with whatever video standard(s) has been baked in.

I don’t want us to be stuck with a proprietary standard controlled by Apple, Adobe, or Microsoft — or Google.

Google completed its acquisition of On2 Technologies, Inc., in February 2010. While most people have never heard of On2 (which has a pretty weird name, it must be said), its video codecs were part of Sorenson Squeeze back when I first started struggling with Web video several years ago, and they were often preferable to the other options available because they gave very good results — always a trade-off between file size and audio-visual quality in video.

Google, along with Mozilla and Opera, is part of the WebM Project, “dedicated to developing a high-quality, open video format for the web that is freely available to everyone.” Although they haven’t run around screaming about it, they are no more eager to accept the status quo of Flash video for the future Web than is Apple.

If Adobe were really smart, they would have open sourced (fully) not only their video formats but also the SWF format. Like, a month ago. I kept waiting for them to do it. But no — just more posturing, like Apple, like dictators of small, violent, self-absorbed countries.

In this game, it seems to me that Apple and Adobe are equally pigheaded and old school. Meanwhile, Google — while surely not a mild-mannered philanthropist in its corporate heart of hearts — has done what one of them should have done, instead of pouring gasoline on the fire.

Is this over yet? I’m sure it is not. But Google’s (apparent) commitment to open standards is better for all of us than a proprietary lock-out (or locked-down) approach.

On2′s VP8 video codec “is now fully open and completely royalty-free,” thanks to Google (source: DZone).

This is a big deal not only because Apple — in its full-out war against Adobe — has declared Flash video to be a non-starter and crowned H.264 the online-video heir apparent, but also because H.264 is no more open, really, than Flash (FLV and F4V) video.

I wrote about this video war in April: What you should know about HTML5 today. What’s at stake is the format for all video on the Web — because, as Lawrence Lessig wrote in 1999, “Code is law.”

When HTML5 is fully baked and comes out of the oven, we will be stuck with whatever video standard(s) has been baked in.

I don’t want us to be stuck with a proprietary standard controlled by Apple, Adobe, or Microsoft — or Google.

Google completed its acquisition of On2 Technologies, Inc., in February 2010. While most people have never heard of On2 (which has a pretty weird name, it must be said), its video codecs were part of Sorenson Squeeze back when I first started struggling with Web video several years ago, and they were often preferable to the other options available because they gave very good results — always a trade-off between file size and audio-visual quality in video.

Google, along with Mozilla and Opera, is part of the WebM Project, “dedicated to developing a high-quality, open video format for the web that is freely available to everyone.” Although they haven’t run around screaming about it, they are no more eager to accept the status quo of Flash video for the future Web than is Apple.

If Adobe were really smart, they would have open sourced (fully) not only their video formats but also the SWF format. Like, a month ago. I kept waiting for them to do it. But no — just more posturing, like Apple, like dictators of small, violent, self-absorbed countries.

In this game, it seems to me that Apple and Adobe are equally pigheaded and old school. Meanwhile, Google — while surely not a mild-mannered philanthropist in its corporate heart of hearts — has done what one of them should have done, instead of pouring gasoline on the fire.

Is this over yet? I’m sure it is not. But Google’s (apparent) commitment to open standards is better for all of us than a proprietary lock-out (or locked-down) approach.

Me too! So I’ve been out there scouring the blogs and the trade press for information.

I’ve concluded that HTML5 and the future of Web design must be considered by category, because each one of these will be affected differently:

• Video
• Mobile and handheld devices
• General Web design

But first, let’s consider the timeline for HTML5.

When will HTML5 be here?

According to Philippe Le Hégaret, of the Worldwide Web Consortium, “I don’t expect to see full implementation of HTML5 across all the major browsers until the end of 2011 at least.” (Reported at Webmonkey, Nov. 17, 2009.)

Dublin-based software developer Devon O. Wolfgang writes: “HTML5 is barely out the door in beta form and is already being implemented differently on different browsers. Eventually (2012, 2014, or maybe not even until 2022, according to various sources), HTML5 might just settle down and assume a lowest common denominator standardization across most, if not all, browsers. … HTML5 is still at least 2 years from being implemented in a widely usable fashion.” (Posted January 31, 2010.)

So if all you’re worried about right now is your syllabus for fall 2010 — relax. Change is slow, and when we teach Web design, we need to focus primarily on the browsers and platforms currently in use.

I’m going to wait until I see a whole lot more green boxes in the “Elements” table on this Wikipedia chart page before I start worrying about teaching HTML5 in depth.

For now, I think it’s important to show Web design students how the standard will change, and have a discussion about why. Here are two good, clear resources that will help you have that discussion:

• HTML 5 and CSS 3: The Techniques You’ll Soon Be Using
• W3schools.com: HTML 5 <video> Tag

Video and HTML5

This is at the heart of current screaming and backstabbing between Adobe and Apple. Most video seen on the Web today is served up via the Flash Player. Apple has declared that Flash is bad because it makes the Safari Web browser crash. The Safari Web browser is the only Web browser that can be used on the iPhone and on the iPad.

It is ironic that much of this argument is tied to HTML5 and open standards when what is preventing Flash from running on the iPhone and the iPad is Apple’s refusal to embrace an open standard for experiencing the Web on those two devices. I mean, the Firefox and Opera browsers can’t appear on the iPhone or the iPad. The Safari Web browser is made by Apple. On the iPhone and the iPad, the Safari browser blocks the Flash Player plugin. (Update: The free “Opera Mini” browser for iPhone made its debut in the App Store on April 13.)

Please note, I am not disputing Apple’s claims about Flash. I’m sure Flash does make the Safari browser crash. Sometimes it makes Firefox crash — on my MacBook Pro (which I love, I might mention). On occasion, Flash probably makes Firefox crash on my Windows XP computer at the office.

But I watch a heck of a lot of video online, on all kinds of Web sites (not only YouTube), and Firefox really does not crash very often. Maybe once a week or less. And, as you might imagine, I’m online pretty much every waking minute of the day. I probably spend at least five hours a day online on my MacBook Pro (like now, while I am writing this) in Firefox. And I also view and use a lot of Web-embedded Flash interactives. I’m just sayin’.

For an overview of the video issues surrounding HTML5 (apart from Apple and Adobe, the video issues involve Google and Microsoft as well), please see the 22-slide PowerPoint I posted yesterday.

Canvas, the other ‘Flash killer’ in HTML5

Video is really the big stake in all this shouting and posturing about HTML5 and its potential for “killing Flash.” A much smaller and quieter discussion is taking place about the myriad other capabilities of Flash — the authoring application, not merely the Player or plugin for Web browsers.

Last week I posted 7 examples of exceptional Flash packages. Those seven examples indicate a range of what authoring in the Flash application makes possible. Note that I said “range” — I’d like to emphasize that it’s a pretty broad range. Then, if you’re really interested, you could have a little browse through an earlier post here, 21 examples of Flash journalism.

There are people who argue that one day you will be able to make all those packages and interactives without Flash, using the <canvas> element in HTML5.

I have serious doubts about that.

I think HTML5 and the <canvas> element will make it possible to create some interactive graphics, photo galleries, and other simple visual packages — without Flash. There are already functional examples of things like this that are constructed primarily with JavaScript code and no Flash at all. (See Using the Canvas, published by Apple, for a clear and brief introduction to the way <canvas> works.) But note that <canvas> does (currently) require significant JavaScript to do anything at all. Someone might one day build an application to spawn the code underneath a drawing or animation interface, relieving authors from the need to write boatloads of code just to slide a freaking photo across the stage. But then, that would be … like Flash.

Jeremy Allaire, founder and CEO of Brightcove, wrote about this in a column published at TechCrunch:

There [is] … a class of Web Productivity Apps where Flash is the preferred runtime, especially those that involve working with and manipulating media such as images, audio and video. We, like many companies, are pragmatic and use both Flash and HTML as the technology needs require. Other examples of this include rich data visualization applications, where Flash has gained prominence …

Rich Media Apps … include largely consumer-facing, audience and media centric experiences. In particular, this includes online video, rich media advertising and marketing, and online games (casual games). … Here, Flash is dominant. … It seems unlikely that HTML5 would be at all positioned to replace Flash for these categories, though it is clearly worth watching how consistent rich media runtimes find their way into the HTML5+ standard. Right now, it is a non starter. (Posted Feb. 5, 2010. Boldface added.)

Note that Allaire is referring to exactly the kinds of in-depth packages we use in journalism — the kinds highlighted in my post 7 examples of exceptional Flash packages.

Update (6:38 p.m.): In a post about Adobe’s new CS5 line, ReadWriteWeb reported, “A tool in the new suite will allow for easy import of Flash animations into HTML5 Canvas code. Once IE9 launches, all major browsers will support Canvas.” Thanks to @dansinker for the tip!

Conclusion

I’m a huge fan of Flash, although I readily admit that it is not perfect — and Adobe has favored Windows in all its development efforts in recent years (not only for Flash, but for its industry standard products Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign too).

I’m also a huge fan of several Apple products, including the iPhone and the MacBook Pro.

On top of that, I strongly support open source efforts (including HTML5), open standards, and a steady movement away from the proprietary messes in which large corporations such as Microsoft have mired us, the users and producers.

But there is no open-source iPhone, and there is no open-source Flash. And the claim that H.264 video is open is plainly incorrect.

If you teach online journalism, you’ve probably been hearing questions from students about the validity of what they are learning today. If you’re teaching Web design for current standards and current browsers, they are asking, “What about HTML5 and CSS3?” If you’re teaching Flash, they are asking whether HTML5 will be a “Flash killer.” And you are probably wondering how soon you will need to update all your assignments and teaching materials.

Me too! So I’ve been out there scouring the blogs and the trade press for information.

I’ve concluded that HTML5 and the future of Web design must be considered by category, because each one of these will be affected differently:

• Video
• Mobile and handheld devices
• General Web design

But first, let’s consider the timeline for HTML5.

When will HTML5 be here?

According to Philippe Le Hégaret, of the Worldwide Web Consortium, “I don’t expect to see full implementation of HTML5 across all the major browsers until the end of 2011 at least.” (Reported at Webmonkey, Nov. 17, 2009.)

Dublin-based software developer Devon O. Wolfgang writes: “HTML5 is barely out the door in beta form and is already being implemented differently on different browsers. Eventually (2012, 2014, or maybe not even until 2022, according to various sources), HTML5 might just settle down and assume a lowest common denominator standardization across most, if not all, browsers. … HTML5 is still at least 2 years from being implemented in a widely usable fashion.” (Posted January 31, 2010.)

So if all you’re worried about right now is your syllabus for fall 2010 — relax. Change is slow, and when we teach Web design, we need to focus primarily on the browsers and platforms currently in use.

I’m going to wait until I see a whole lot more green boxes in the “Elements” table on this Wikipedia chart page before I start worrying about teaching HTML5 in depth.

For now, I think it’s important to show Web design students how the standard will change, and have a discussion about why. Here are two good, clear resources that will help you have that discussion:

• HTML 5 and CSS 3: The Techniques You’ll Soon Be Using
• W3schools.com: HTML 5 <video> Tag

Video and HTML5

This is at the heart of current screaming and backstabbing between Adobe and Apple. Most video seen on the Web today is served up via the Flash Player. Apple has declared that Flash is bad because it makes the Safari Web browser crash. The Safari Web browser is the only Web browser that can be used on the iPhone and on the iPad.

It is ironic that much of this argument is tied to HTML5 and open standards when what is preventing Flash from running on the iPhone and the iPad is Apple’s refusal to embrace an open standard for experiencing the Web on those two devices. I mean, the Firefox and Opera browsers can’t appear on the iPhone or the iPad. The Safari Web browser is made by Apple. On the iPhone and the iPad, the Safari browser blocks the Flash Player plugin. (Update: The free “Opera Mini” browser for iPhone made its debut in the App Store on April 13.)

Please note, I am not disputing Apple’s claims about Flash. I’m sure Flash does make the Safari browser crash. Sometimes it makes Firefox crash — on my MacBook Pro (which I love, I might mention). On occasion, Flash probably makes Firefox crash on my Windows XP computer at the office.

But I watch a heck of a lot of video online, on all kinds of Web sites (not only YouTube), and Firefox really does not crash very often. Maybe once a week or less. And, as you might imagine, I’m online pretty much every waking minute of the day. I probably spend at least five hours a day online on my MacBook Pro (like now, while I am writing this) in Firefox. And I also view and use a lot of Web-embedded Flash interactives. I’m just sayin’.

For an overview of the video issues surrounding HTML5 (apart from Apple and Adobe, the video issues involve Google and Microsoft as well), please see the 22-slide PowerPoint I posted yesterday.

Canvas, the other ‘Flash killer’ in HTML5

Video is really the big stake in all this shouting and posturing about HTML5 and its potential for “killing Flash.” A much smaller and quieter discussion is taking place about the myriad other capabilities of Flash — the authoring application, not merely the Player or plugin for Web browsers.

Last week I posted 7 examples of exceptional Flash packages. Those seven examples indicate a range of what authoring in the Flash application makes possible. Note that I said “range” — I’d like to emphasize that it’s a pretty broad range. Then, if you’re really interested, you could have a little browse through an earlier post here, 21 examples of Flash journalism.

There are people who argue that one day you will be able to make all those packages and interactives without Flash, using the <canvas> element in HTML5.

I have serious doubts about that.

I think HTML5 and the <canvas> element will make it possible to create some interactive graphics, photo galleries, and other simple visual packages — without Flash. There are already functional examples of things like this that are constructed primarily with JavaScript code and no Flash at all. (See Using the Canvas, published by Apple, for a clear and brief introduction to the way <canvas> works.) But note that <canvas> does (currently) require significant JavaScript to do anything at all. Someone might one day build an application to spawn the code underneath a drawing or animation interface, relieving authors from the need to write boatloads of code just to slide a freaking photo across the stage. But then, that would be … like Flash.

Jeremy Allaire, founder and CEO of Brightcove, wrote about this in a column published at TechCrunch:

There [is] … a class of Web Productivity Apps where Flash is the preferred runtime, especially those that involve working with and manipulating media such as images, audio and video. We, like many companies, are pragmatic and use both Flash and HTML as the technology needs require. Other examples of this include rich data visualization applications, where Flash has gained prominence …

Rich Media Apps … include largely consumer-facing, audience and media centric experiences. In particular, this includes online video, rich media advertising and marketing, and online games (casual games). … Here, Flash is dominant. … It seems unlikely that HTML5 would be at all positioned to replace Flash for these categories, though it is clearly worth watching how consistent rich media runtimes find their way into the HTML5+ standard. Right now, it is a non starter. (Posted Feb. 5, 2010. Boldface added.)

Note that Allaire is referring to exactly the kinds of in-depth packages we use in journalism — the kinds highlighted in my post 7 examples of exceptional Flash packages.

Update (6:38 p.m.): In a post about Adobe’s new CS5 line, ReadWriteWeb reported, “A tool in the new suite will allow for easy import of Flash animations into HTML5 Canvas code. Once IE9 launches, all major browsers will support Canvas.” Thanks to @dansinker for the tip!

Conclusion

I’m a huge fan of Flash, although I readily admit that it is not perfect — and Adobe has favored Windows in all its development efforts in recent years (not only for Flash, but for its industry standard products Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign too).

I’m also a huge fan of several Apple products, including the iPhone and the MacBook Pro.

On top of that, I strongly support open source efforts (including HTML5), open standards, and a steady movement away from the proprietary messes in which large corporations such as Microsoft have mired us, the users and producers.

But there is no open-source iPhone, and there is no open-source Flash. And the claim that H.264 video is open is plainly incorrect.