{"items": [{"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201507196595413", "anchor": "fb-201507196595413", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jim: Some sort of side-by-side format, where clicking on text would jump you to that point of the video, would be nice. You could read the transcription, but if something was poorly transcribed you could listen to a piece. And perhaps contribute a fix?", "timestamp": "1322152188"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201535723259227", "anchor": "fb-201535723259227", "service": "fb", "text": "My thoughts about the TED things come in two different directions:
(1) I'm a little surprised that TED hasn't started doing full-text transcription, since it's both available with machine automation (sorta) and mandated for section 508 compliance. They're non-governmental, so they don't have to do section 508, but I'm still a little surprised they aren't doing that.
(2) It's been shown over and over that presenting learners with side-by-side video/audio and text transcription impedes both their retention and ability to transfer the information into new contexts; in short, it hinders learning. There are a bunch of theories of multimedia learning that attempt to describe this effect; the currently popular one is called the \"split attention effect\", which points out that people do additional mental processing (confirmed by fMRI) when they're hearing someone speak the same words that they're also able to read. It's kind of like the golden retriever that runs ahead of you, doubles back, waits for a bit, runs ahead again, etc. Side-by-side text and audio seems to make people do more unnecessary mental work, which hurts learning performance. So that might be why they aren't doing it.", "timestamp": "1322156203"}, {"author": "Jim", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112932743371759723915", "anchor": "gp-1322157769742", "service": "gp", "text": "This is why I claim we're living in the End Days of Prehistory. Future centuries will look back on our lives, with our inability to retrieve and search everything we've ever experienced, as a vast darkness, the same as we consider events before the invention of writing as lost, mysterious and barely real.", "timestamp": 1322157769}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201575183255281", "anchor": "fb-201575183255281", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: \"side-by-side video/audio and text transcription impedes both their retention and ability to transfer the information into new contexts\"
I'm glad people have looked at this. What I'm proposing, though, is not video that plays by default. Instead it's supposed to be experienced primarily as text. But when the text is insufficient because the transcription isn't good enough, you can easily see the underlying video.", "timestamp": "1322161273"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201588946587238", "anchor": "fb-201588946587238", "service": "fb", "text": "As Matthew points out, you'll get debate about whether the text can *ever* be sufficient by itself. I haven't made an encyclopedic study of TED talks, but a lot of the ones I've watched have depended--equally--on the images and the words. A good example is Scott McCloud's TED talk on comics (http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_mccloud_on_comics.html), which would totally fail if experienced \"primarily as text\".
I suspect that we would run into a lot of problems with lost meanings if we made the digital TED medium primarily devoted to text given that TED itself is still a talk-based model. There's a sampling problem, because text won't capture all the essence of a (good) verbal presentation.
However, this is all a moot point, because they already have this feature: click Interactive Transcript on the right side. See, e.g., http://www.ted.com/.../pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense... .", "timestamp": "1322163120"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201594263253373", "anchor": "fb-201594263253373", "service": "fb", "text": "@Hollis: neat! The interactive transcript is pretty much what I was thinking of.
That TED talks are heavily verbal and sometimes depend on the visuals is part of why I haven't gotten into watching them. I really like reading.", "timestamp": "1322163844"}, {"author": "George", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201817199897746", "anchor": "fb-201817199897746", "service": "fb", "text": "I find gmail search deeply disappointing. I have to remember a relatively long exact string from the message to find anything. It really doesn't seem to work very well.", "timestamp": "1322195485"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201818999897566", "anchor": "fb-201818999897566", "service": "fb", "text": "@George: I have to admit, I don't actually use gmail, so I haven't tried to use their search much. The idea that everything is stored and there is *some* search, however, is a huge conceptual improvement over the old \"delete after reading\" model. Also, once you're keeping all the data future improvements in search can help you with emails you got in the past.", "timestamp": "1322195886"}, {"author": "Hollis", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/201456943267105?comment_id=201825766563556", "anchor": "fb-201825766563556", "service": "fb", "text": "I miss mutt's fairly flexible patterning/regex-ish search. But Gmail is pretty convenient. I share George's disappointment and Jeff's enthusiasm.", "timestamp": "1322197388"}]}