I found this review much more balanced than some of the previous ones:
Rethlefsen, M. L. (2009). Product pipeline. Library Journal, 134(1), S12-S14.
The author states that Jing is probably best suited for "novices" due to its limited options. Even though videos cannot be edited after they are created, the quality is quite good despite the small files sizes. Although the video quality is good, the author mentions that the audio quality is "mid-range." Rethlefsen also comments on the convenience provided by the simple uploading and sharing of content provided by Screencast.com. Also notable is that Jing promotes itself through links and watermarks attached to all the media created with the program. The the fact that videos created with Jing have a 5 minute time limit also hinders the range of capabilities one might use the program for. The author makes a few recommendations for libraries, stating that Jing's video length limitation means that videos should be pre-planned in advance, which is not always possible in the library setting. Due to its simplicity, Jing would also be a good program to install on patron computers. Finally, the author mentions that Jing is becoming more popular in the gaming world as a way to capture on screen action when playing video games on the computer.
This article presented a much more balanced view of the product than some of the other articles I've come across in my research. It also makes recommendations for libraries in terms of product usage, which is more relevant to this research project since I myself am trying to determine how Jing fits into virtual reference in today's libraries. The fact that the article comes from Library Journal definitely explains this, as this is obviously a library-centered resource.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment