A lot of people provide a Flash player as default for maximum compatibility and then provide a text link to the high quality file underneath. In a lot of cases, you need to provide a text link to the file for podcasting purposes anyway, so you could just label that as a high quality version.
But it's pretty hard to convince people who don't know about these things that they should choose one file or another. Mostly they're concerned with speed and ease over video quality. If they don't have Quicktime installed (or they have an old version), they're going to get a problem when they click your link to your Quicktime file and they're not going to bother to install Quicktime or upgrade it. Even close family members don't do that, in my experience. Hence the domination of YouTube, whose great move of genius was to stick with an old Flash codec that most people could use on older computers. Four years later, there are still a few people I know here in Vancouver Island who have older computers that can only see YouTube videos, not Blip or Vimeo or anything else - they can't install the latest versions of Flash player. Other than that, at the risk of sounding like I'm on the Blip payroll, the Blip flash player is quite a neat solution. It'll play the video in the Flash player as a high quality H264 mp4 file when one is available, or otherwise as a Flash video. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 13-Mar-09, at 6:47 PM, RatbagMedia wrote: YouTube habits have encouraged a ready use of flash players online. But few people I mix with are aware that the .mov file option I offer is a much better viewing experience. So what means do folk employ to get visitors to consider either downloading or watching the .mov file instead of the flash? My vids are often donwnloaded and screened so quality is an offline issue dave riley Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ Creative Mobile Filmmaking Shot, edited and sent with my Nokia N93 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
