A-ha for class 7's reading

Adding video to web pages is becoming increasingly common, but the quality of which it is executed varies greatly from site to site. There is nothing more irritating than going to a web site only to have it move incredibly slow while it tries to get a video to load. Sometimes the video doesn't work at all, or will just be "loading" forever...ugh! I think it is important is it is a feature that grows in popularity that the creators of the site keep the users best interest in mind. If they produce a slow or broken video it will only lead to consumer frustration as opposed to supporting their site.
I think having a seperate console for the video sounds like a good idea, allowing you to navigate around the site without having to wait for the video to finish. We all know how short our attention spans are, and if we need to move around the site to get what we want, we're not going to wait for the video to finish running. I've never been a fan of embedding video directly into a site, though it happens a lot.
In the area of protocols and plug-ins, I'm still a little hazy. I get the general point that to know the costs, benefits, and compatibility of each is key. This brings my brain back to the birst day when Drew explained that the planning of the media execution takes SO much more time than the actual execution. Testing different ways to deliver media to see what will be most optimal for the site is extremely crutial.

Mobile video seems to be creating its own little media category. It's limitations and technoloogy development around it, just like any new media, will really shape where it will go and how it will be used. I will be interested to see what kind of a response and what kind of use this media has in Asia.