You can still read Slate. Some features from the magazine will get video treatment (like the Dear Prudence animation), but the written feature will always be there to be read (we'll publish more Dear Prudence letters for the crowd who'd rather read it then watch it).

Just because we do a video version of the Explainer doesn't mean we're not doing any more Explainers in article form. Sorry if that's not been clear.

I think that is what some of us are concerened about. If those of us who would rather not watch the video, we will miss out on that specific story. I would prefer the video option to be a bonus w/ some written articles as opposed to being the only way to get the story.

Dear Prudence is one of my favorite articles, but the animation was so painful I could only sit through a few seconds. Do us all a favor and return to the written format - no video. For other articles I'm inclined to be more forgiving if the content is truly suited to a video.

That was video for the sake of video...having Dear Prudie talking to me just made it take longer and added no value whatsover. Also, how can I read it at work if it is a video? :-)

It is video or nothing, in the sense that the video article isn't reproduced as a Slate written article. If some of your more interesting articles show up in video form with no print analogue, it will be frustrating for those who don't want to have to put up with video. Videos articles should be either "enhanced" print articles, or articles that wouldn't translate well into print (i.e., those for which video is the natural medium).

We're giving you more, we're not taking anything away from you. The franchises from Slate that we think (and you're free to disagree!) would make good video pieces are running IN ADDITION to any print articles. Don't like the Prudence animation? It's ok! You still have 4 letters/responses to read! Yes, that particular letter won't be in text form, but it wouldn't be printed on the site anyway (because Emily usually does 3 to 4 letters per column). So, really, you're not missing anything.

Same thing with Explainer - you'll still have the regular amount of Explainers on the site, just one will be a video. And yes, it's the one we feel needs to be visual for that week and that, if we weren't doing a video version, wouldn't be printed on the site. So, again, you're not missing anything.

We agree, video pieces should be the pieces that don't translate well into print or help to enhance the printed piece (for example, we have a video accompanying a Shopper later this week). That's not to say we won't disagree (we've gotten as much positive as negative feedback on the Prudence animations), but we're really not taking anything away from people who are completely satisfied reading Slate.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I was never contending that Slate was taking anything away. My point was that it irritates users to post interesting content only in an unwieldy format. You advertise an interesting article, and then it turns out that we have to put up with viewing a lengthy video (along with an unavoidable advertisement) just to get the information. Unless the video article represents content that just can't be presented well in print form, as the percentage of Slate content devoted to video (or audio) content increases, the more you will annoy users who prefer to get their information quickly by reading. I suspect most of Slate's readership falls into this category. It would be preferable to offer an ordinary article in both print and "enhanced" video form, so all parties will be satisfied (both those who like to read articles and those who like to watch videos). Otherwise it really is "video or nothing" -- if you want to learn Prudie's response about the cute dog, it's either watch the video, or learn nothing.

It would probably be wiser for the Slate staff to listen to how their readers feel about their format (and there seems to be no shortage of similar complaints in this discussion forum) than to try to tell them how they should feel.

But you can't read the "Dear Prudence" or "Explainer" story. It's video or nothing. And No warning that it's video only.There's no link to the text or any indication that there are other text stories to be found.

As others have mentioned. sound and moving graphics are no work-place friendly!

I have a high speed connection at home and the quality stunk.

Let's try this another way. That Prudie animation with the dog? Let's say we DIDN'T make the video. It wouldn't have been featured in the column, the exact same letters you can read now would still be there. It's that simple. So, if it wasn't a video, it wouldn't have made it in to the column. So, if you don't watch the video (because you simply hate the animated videos) you don't see it. If there's no video, you don't see it printed. You've missed nothing. It's not video or nothing. The column as you know it exists in exactly the same way. So it's video and something for people who don't like the video. Not that I need to tell you this, but don't watch Slate V. It's clearly not for you. Slate Magazine is no different in content for having the video part and you can still read all your favorite columns and stories.

That's pretty dim logic. I understood the first time (and every subsequent time) your point about the content. My point is that so long as these videos get advertised on Slate.com (as opposed to SlateV.com), they will annoy Slate users. No one who prefers reading articles to watching videos is going to follow your logic when they see and ad for a video article that interests them. Of course they will be irritated that they can't access the information without going through the inferior format. They will not say to themselves, "Boy, I'm glad that video could bring this article that I don't have time to watch into existence." Users will look at the Slate.com page, see that 20% of the articles are videos, and be annoyed that they can't read them.

I sitll haven't seen a good reason why most of the content from SlateV videos couldn't be reduplicated in print, since most of the content doesn't seem to be uniquely suited to video. Even a transcript would be better than nothing. I don't understand the reason for making videos out of "yet-unborn" Slate articles, as opposed to enhancing an already written article with video content. That way the users who prefer videos can watch the videos and the users who prefer to read can read the articles. I suspect that it's a ploy to increase advertising revenue -- if you want to access the new content, you have to watch a video ad. In that case, the argument that "we're just bringing 'unborn' articles to video" should be seen for what it is: spin. Otherwise, I don't see the point of trying to convince users how they should feel about the experience, instead of just listening to them tell you how they feel about it.

Perhaps the real reason that JimF isn't able to see / acknowledge the shortfallings of Slate V is that he is directly connected to the product as an editor. Guess what? I still don't know how big Rhode Island is because I have no frame of reference of how big the objects being compared to it are. The Slate V addition of the overlay of Rhode Island doesn't help if I've never been to Antarctica or Houston or Hawaii. I've been to Yosemite but just because I've been there doesn't mean that I can appreciate how "big" it is. I would submit that the explainer relied too much on images and didn't really explain anything in that segment. Hopefully, all of slate doesn't go this way... Ah, the slippery slope of journalism that stops relying on thinking and just rests on flashy images.

I read the Shopper piece on stain removal. I thought while I was reading it that it seemed stupider than most of your pieces: like the writer had never actually done any of his own laundry. (Would you publish a wine review from someone who really didn't ever drink wine, say?) Then I saw, well, it was a VIDEO piece. Slate is just getting dumb and dumber. And I am becoming far less satisfied with your content.

I know this thread is a year old, but I am so tired of being frustrated with the videos (I've been patient for ages!) that I have to come say something now.

I HATE being taunted with a tantalizing headline or graphic only to see I can only get the content in video form. I love reading Prudie. I want to get as much content of hers as I can. The irritation of realizing here is a part of a Prudie "column" I can't access generates enormous ill will for a good five or ten minutes each time it happens. Why do you want me to associate those kinds of feelings with Slate?

(And why do you want to decline the advertising opportunity of making me look at ads while I read the transcript? As I'm not watching the video, you're getting nothing too.)

When I see a Yahoo Video headline that is interesting to me, I can simply copy the headline into Google News, find a related news article, and get the content that way. Thus I put up with all the Yahoo Video advertising that invades the interface of my email. I can still get the written content, albeit with a few extra steps. Hell, I can even get TV show transcripts not too long after they air.

But I don't have that option here. The content is not published anywhere by anyone else, so there is no go-around. You'd think you guys probably had a transcript/script to work with to make a lot of these videos - how hard could it be to have an intern clean them up and post them? Think of how many of us you would make happy. I'm confused, with so many folks asking for it (who obviously feel so strongly about it) why this is such a problem. What it does feel like is someone in marketing trying too hard to be trendy and get on the video train, and then not wanting to back down from that position even though it stirs up irritation among readers.

All we really want is a compromise. Keep your video. It's okay. But throw us a bone, I mean transcript, now and then?