The Digital Frame
YouTube, Khan Academy, and Interface Analysis
This essay, during its formulation, has existed in a variety of forms: first, as a series of dot-points and ideas, written with ink on a piece of paper; second, those same points, now displayed as pixels through the note-taking software Evernote; third, through the interface of Microsoft Word, where these points were expanded into paragraphs to form a coherent body of text; and finally, as it is displayed now, on Medium, another system designed to promote and allow a far different response. In each of these stages, the message of the content has remained largely constant. The system of mediation, however, has been anything but.
Such malleability is not unique to the written word. Our experience of any media is dictated by the design of the system through which it is mediated and the context in which it is viewed. Rather than neutral, the medium is “aggressive” (Manovich 2001, p. 96); it shapes both the form and the frame, and becomes just as crucial to our relationship with the content as the content itself. To illustrate the malleability of a single media form and display the influence that the design of a system has on a viewer’s engagement and experience with the content, this essay will focus on two YouTube channels that have similar goals and work through the same medium (i.e. online video) but achieve markedly different outcomes due to the context and interface through which they are displayed: Crash Course and Khan Academy.
Founded by YouTube veterans John and Hank Green in 2011, Crash Course is an educational channel that teaches traditional subjects — ranging from biology to world history — through episodic series of 10 to 15 minute videos. Similarly, Khan Academy — a YouTube channel, website, and not-for-profit organisation founded by Salman Khan in 2006 — also presents educational video series that are sorted into subject areas and specific topics. Both channels aim to engage school and university students in learning and discussion, as well as reaching a larger “recreational learner” audience. They also have commercial concerns: though a not-for-profit, Khan Academy’s viewership dictates the level of funding they receive; Crash Course, meanwhile, is for profit, and their revenue is generated through advertising, relying on views to fund the channel. But while these two channels make use of the same medium and share similar goals, their audience has a fundamentally different experience due to the design of the system through which their content is mediated.
Burgess and Green (2009) argue that YouTube videos can be analysed as a cultural object by studying the textual content and aesthetics of the video, and — most critically — the response of the audience. Drawing on the research of Patricia Lange (2007), Burgess and Green stress the importance of studying “the uses of YouTube by real people” in both their everyday life and as a component of their experience in the media landscape at large (p. 8). This strategy provides insight into YouTube’s “participatory culture,” and allows critical discussion of YouTube’s part in constructing “the cultural politics of digital media” (p. 10). Galloway (2009) asserts that such reactions to any media form are shaped by the system through which they are displayed. Rather than acting as a transparent looking glass, as in Bolter and Grusin’s (2000) concept of “immediacy,” Galloway contends that the interface is obtrusive. That is, the interface — both by definition and in practice — is inherently tangible; it acts as an intermediary between the content and the user, and therefore becomes a medium in and of itself (p. 936). As such, it shapes the way that the user interacts with and experiences the content.
When applied to Crash Course and Khan Academy, these methods of analysis reveal the influence of an interface’s aesthetic and functional design on the user’s experience and engagement. The shape of the intermediate frame fundamentally results in (or, in some cases, promotes) a different response. Though Crash Course’s videos are also displayed through other means (and notably as “partner content” on Khan Academy), they are primarily presented through YouTube’s hyper-mediated desktop interface, an interface that encourages distraction and inhibits engagement. Contrastingly, Khan Academy’s streamlined design aims to cut out distractions, thereby engaging its audience and promoting sequential learning.
This disparity in the mode of reception becomes evident in the audience’s interactive response. The Agricultural Revolution (CrashCourse 2012), the first video in Crash Course’s World History series, is available for viewing on both YouTube and Khan Academy. In figure 1, we can see a distinct difference in the type of reaction that each platform prompts. On YouTube, the most recent comments exhibit somewhat of a superficial or surface understanding. They tend to prioritise value judgements and focus on the video’s presentation rather than its content. The most recent response to that same video on Khan Academy, however, shows a far different pattern. The user asks questions that show a level of critical engagement with, and interpretation of, the content.
To analyse how these two interfaces catalyse such different response to the same content, we can isolate their individual elements.
The Sidebar
Though there is a certain logic to it, YouTube’s sidebar inhibits concentration by diverting the user’s attention away from the video at hand. As YouTube’s main navigation tool, the sidebar provides clickable thumbnails that link to videos that are predominantly related to the video being watched or from the same channel. In figure 2, for example, the user is watching a video from the Crash Course Psychology series. Here, the sidebar provides links to an assortment of videos from Crash Course’s World History and Big History series, as well as videos from later in the Psychology series. But while there is an evident pattern of relatability, these suggestions are algorithmically generated and non-linear; they do not offer a sequence in which to progress, and the user is left directionless when the current video ends (Juhasz 2008, p. 137). In the sidebar in figure 2, we also see a link to the unrelated video Star Wars Described by a Non Fan (Trigon’s Trailers 2012), with a thumbnail that is seemingly from the BBC TV show The Thick of It and a byline informing us that it is “recommended for you.” Here, YouTube is generating recommendations based on my personal viewing history, and this is something that I feel oddly compelled to click.
This is the sort of Internet distractionism lamented by Nicholas Carr (2010). Carr argues that the Internet “seizes our attention only to scatter it” (p. 118). A hypermediated interface such as the YouTube sidebar — which simultaneously presents video, text, images, and hyperlinks — works to gain the user’s attention, but in doing so, it averts their eye from the actual video at hand (Lovink 2008). With educational videos such as the Crash Course series, this results in disengagement from the content as the user’s attention is directed elsewhere. Carr contends that such strategies make any kind of “deep thought” an impossibility online (p. 138). Carr’s conclusions, however, are far too generic; they do not take into account the strategies of an interface that can actively promote engagement and progression.
Khan Academy’s sidebar, though minimalist in design, achieves a level of engagement and a sense of progression through precision and hierarchy: the first level locates us within the website; the second locates us within the subject; and the third locates us within the topic (see figure 3). So, in contrast with YouTube’s somewhat nebulous sidebar, Khan Academy’s design provides a codified sense of where we are, where we have been, and where we are going. The pattern of progression is extended in the third level, with shaded play buttons marking the videos that have been watched in full, half-shaded buttons marking those that have been partially watched, and unshaded buttons marking those unplayed. A progress bar links each component, and this becomes fully shaded once each of the videos in the sequence has been viewed. In figure 3, we see a disjuncture in the line between the third and the fourth videos. This line has two interrelated functions: it indicates to the user that a component in the sequence has been skipped, and, as such, it compels the user to fill in this blank by watching the video. Here, this disconcerting break in continuity is used to encourage comprehensive learning, and thus deeper engagement with the content. And compared to YouTube, Khan Academy’s sidebar is far less conspicuous. Whereas YouTube’s sidebar foregrounds thumbnail previews, view counts, runtimes, channel names and uses bold text, Khan Academy opts for subdued colours, an unbolded typeface, and a no-image interface. This unobtrusive design tunnels the user’s attention towards the video at hand. These strategies display the ways in which our experience with media is dictated by the design of the system of mediation.
The Sharing Interface
Though it encourages discussion and interaction, YouTube’s sharing interface distracts the user from the video at hand. Unlike Khan Academy — where the sharing interface consists of a single button that allows the user to share to Facebook, Twitter, or email — YouTube provides its users a bevy of methods by which to share content. First, the site offers a form of internal sharing, where users can add the video to a public playlist and either “like” or “dislike” the video. These functions, however, are inextricably linked to external sharing; Google+, Facebook and Twitter accounts can be linked to a user’s YouTube profile to automatically share likes and dislikes. These functions, once their initial setup has been completed, work entirely in the background. So, in isolation, such functions do not act to disengage the viewer from the video at hand, nor do they provide any significant distraction. However, once any video on YouTube has completed playing, a far more extensive — and a more distractionary — sharing interface is automatically opened. As seen in figure 4, this interface provides external links to an overwhelming set of additional sites such as Reddit, Tumblr, LinkedIn and Digg among others. It is a design that actively promotes distraction; rather than allowing the concepts taught by John or Hank Green to sink in or be quietly pondered over, the user is directed down the rabbit hole of their social network to virally spread the video and attract more views. If the user follows these cues, any attempt at Carr’s (2010) idea of “deep thought” is stymied. The passively conveyed message delivered through video takes a backseat to the active thought required to share and communicate via social media. Again, the design of the system of mediation — including the affordances and cues it provides — shapes our experience of, and relationship with, the content.
The Searchbar
Though essentially the same in function, the YouTube and Khan Academy searchbars mark another point of distinction that alters the experience of the user. Khan Academy’s searchbar comes with instructions: it tells the viewer to “search for subjects, skills, and videos.” This text aims to confine our mindset to the website’s internal system. As we type into the searchbar, it instantly expands to provide indexed search results that are sorted into “subject, skills, and videos.” The interface again indicates whether or not these have been viewed by use of shaded or unshaded icons. So rather than acting as a distraction, Khan Academy’s searchbar accentuates the platform’s hierarchical structure and its emphasis on progression.
In contrast, YouTube’s searchbar provides a blank slate. As seen in figure 2, the searchbar is entirely empty and offers neither instruction nor direction. As such, it is receptive to any input the user happens to type in. But rather than afford the user the option to confine search results to related content or videos from the same channel, any search initiates a departure from the immediate space of the video at hand and, instead, directs the user toward the “bottomless amount” of videos within YouTube’s network (Elsaesser 2008, p. 30). This dispersive strategy is amplified when any text is entered into the searchbar. In figure 6, I attempt to use the searchbar to navigate to the next video in Crash Course’s Psychology series — a video titled The Bobo Beatdown (CrashCourse 2014b). Upon typing, the searchbar spontaneously expands to present algorithmically generated search suggestions. While some of these suggestions are related to the topic within psychology — and the penultimate one is the specific video being searched for — YouTube again repeats this pattern of distraction and aleatory disorder (Juhasz 2009, p. 149). Five of the suggestions seen in figure 6 direct the user to the unrelated “bobo song,” and another displays YouTube’s patent randomness with a mention of Peter Sellers. Again, these functional and aesthetic mechanisms work to distract the user from any ordered or sequential task, and, in doing so, the medium alters the user’s relationship with the content.
The Player Window
At first glance, the player window of Khan Academy and Crash Course appear to be exactly the same. They each use YouTube’s default HTML5 (or flash) player, which allows the user to pause the video, change the volume and access closed-captions among other options. The difference, however, lies in the top right corner. Here, as seen in figure 3, Khan Academy provides a series of bubbles that gradually shrink as the user watches the video. This provides the user an extrinsic incentive to watch the entirety of the video, and visually represents progression. In YouTube’s interface, however, there is no such incentive; the user could simply see something more interesting in the sidebar and therefore skip the particular video at hand without hesitation. So, again, the design of the interface influences the engagement and, in this case, behaviour of the user.
The Message
In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Marshall McLuhan (1964) notes, “the content of any medium is always another medium” (p. 8). If we treat the respective interfaces of both YouTube and Khan Academy as media in and of themselves, we can see the truth of this statement; both interfaces are containers for images, music, text, video, and even light. But despite the visual and functional prominence of the interface, both Salman Khan and the Green Brothers’ primary aim is to educate and inform. It could therefore be argued that both channels simply use the interface as a means of communicating and as a platform on which to present their content.
But there is something deeper, and more intricate at work here. In the introduction of Crash Course’s video on Capitalism and Socialism (2012), John Green, upon reflection of the complexity of these competing ideologies, remarks “but what can I do? We only have 12 minutes.” Not only did YouTube abandon such time constraints in 2010 (Kincaid 2010), but the ensuing video runs for 14 minutes. So, when Green states, “we only have 12 minutes,” he is not referring to any systematic or structural constraint. At the same time, Green’s tone implies that this limitation is not entirely self-imposed. Instead, this is a limitation imposed by the expectations of the audience. YouTube — through the history of its affordances, its limitations, and its design — has normalised a platform where popular videos run for no longer than 12 minutes. Crash Course’s (prospective) audience expects them to conform to this (unwritten) standard. It is simultaneously a top-down and a bottom-up imposition.
With this, we see that the aforementioned argument (i.e. that the medium is simply a means of communication) misses the point. While the aim of Khan and the Green Brothers is indeed to educate and inform, the medium has an agency. Through its affordances and its limitations, the interface encourages — and, at times, dictates — the user’s engagement with and response to the content. But this is not a one-way process; the reaction of the audience feeds back into the system to iteratively shape both the content and the medium itself.
So, with Crash Course and Khan Academy, the content of the videos is undeniably the message. These videos are designed to teach, they are designed to engage, they are designed to incite discussion and reaction. These aims and intents, however, cannot be uncoupled from the system of mediation. Decisions in design and function — be they algorithmic or aesthetic — fundamentally define both the form of the content and the audience’s reaction to it. These tools, to paraphrase McLuhan, not only shape the form and the frame — they shape us.
References
Bolter, Jay and Richard Grusin. 2000. ‘Immediacy, Hypermediacy and Remediation.’ In Remediation: Understanding New Media, 22–50. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Burgess, Jean and Joshua Green. 2009. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Malden, MA: Polity Press
Carr, Nicholas. 2010. ‘The Juggler’s Brain.’ In The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, 115–143. New York, NY: Norton
Elsaesser, Thomas. 2008. ‘’Constructive instability’, or: The life of things as the cinema’s afterlife?’ In The Video Vortex Reader – Responses to YouTube, eds. G. Lovink and S. Niederer, 13–31. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures
Galloway, Alexander. 2008. ‘The Unworkable Interface.’ Cinema Journal 39 (4): 931–955
Juhasz, Alexandra. 2008. ‘Why Not (To) Teach On Youtube.’ In The Video Vortex Reader – Responses to YouTube, eds. G. Lovink and S. Niederer, 133–140. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures
Juhasz, Alexandra. 2009. ‘Learning the Five Lessons of YouTube: After Trying to Teach There, I Don’t Believe the Hype.’ Cinema Journal 48 (2): 145–150
Kincaid, Jason. 2010. ‘YouTube Begins To Remove Its Video Time Limits.’ TechCrunch, 9 December, 2010. (Cited 28 October, 2014). <http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/09/youtube-time-limit-2/>
Lange, Patricia. 2007. ‘Commenting on Comments: Investigating Responses to Antagonism on YouTube.’ Paper presented at Society for Applied Anthropology Conference, Tampa, Florida
Lovink, Geert. 2008. ‘The Art of Watching Databases – Introduction to the Video Vortex Reader.’ In The Video Vortex Reader – Responses to YouTube, eds. G. Lovink and S. Niederer, 9–12. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures
Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
McLuhan, Marshall (1964). ‘The Medium is the Message.’ In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 7–21. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.
Videos Referenced
CrashCourse. 2012. The Agricultural Revolution: Crash Course World History #1. YouTube Video. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yocja_N5s1I> and <https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/crash-course1/crash-course-world-history/what-happens-when-you-stay-put/v/crash-course-world-history-01> (accessed October 25, 2014).
CrashCourse. 2014a. How to Train a Brain — Crash Course Psychology #11. YouTube Video. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128Ts5r9NRE> (accessed October 26, 2014).
CrashCourse. 2014b. The Bobo Beatdown — Crash Course Psychology #12. YouTube Video. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=128Ts5r9NRE> (accessed October 27, 2014).
Khan Academy. 2011. When Capitalism is great and not-so-great. <https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/history/history-survey/us-history/v/when-capitalism-is-great-and-not-so-great> (accessed October 26, 2014).
Trigon’s Trailers. 2012. Star Wars Described by a Non Fan. YouTube Video. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg-pnGFbwMQ> (accessed October 26, 2014).
