Gadgetopia

That's so true. When watching a video of "a talking head", usually I just select another window and do something else while I listen, keeping an eye on visible part of the video window behind it just in case something interesting appears. But this doesn't only apply on the web. I do the same with a TV: looking outside through the window, distracting myself by doing something else.

Why should I look at someone talking if he can't see me? I listen to what he has to say, just like I do with radio, and look at the visual content when there is something interesting to look at.

My first thought when I read the title of Nielsen's article was "Duh!" (with all due respect, of course.) Why have video if it's only someone talking? If there is video footage of what's being discussed, that's one thing, but I'm not interested in seeing the reporter report.

One of his guidelines further down in the article says

... avoid using video if the content doesn't take advantage of the medium's dynamic nature. ...it's better to use video for things that move or otherwise work better on film than they would as a combination of photos and text.

That should be more of a rule than a guideline. Maybe I'm thinking with a limited-bandwidth-mindset, but unless the video is worth seeing I won't waste my time waiting for it to load. A lot of times if there's any doubt as to a video's worth, I won't even try it. If you can get the job done with audio and a static image, why mess with video?