So far it does, anyway. I’m hoping to have better luck in the future. But I have frustrations so far that equal those of some of my fellow mac users, such as Jeffra Bussman. There are not a lot of free applications out there for us. I have been trying two of them, and so far would not recommend either. Why not? Because these apps Snapz Pro and Jing are swell as far as helping one produce a screencast, but they suck when it comes to posting those screencasts anywhere that matters.

And come to think of it, how good are these apps at producing screencasts at all? Is there much in the way of editing tools? Can we lay down tracks on top of tracks like we do with podcasting software? No. I mean these tools are primitive. They give us little power and they take us nowhere. And Snapz costs money, man. Can it not do more than this?

Okay. It probably can. My problem is that I have been out of touch for the last few days. I am trying quickly to catch up. I needed this last weekend to tool around with the software.

Yeah, but maybe there is more. I am terrifically unimpressed by this technology so far. I know it can be so much better. There is next to nothing in the way of free software for Mac. My 246 colleague Laurel Elby had to purchase a copy of QuickTime Pro in order to get the audio from her Snapz Pro-produced screencast to work. I am still too skeptical to lay out the dough for it. But because I am not, my screencast misses something essential. Check this out. Without the audio, can you tell what the heck is going on?

No, I’m sure. If these software companies want my money, they need to be better than this.

As far as libraries using screencasting software goes, I’d also like to see more redemption here. Look at this blog from Virginia Commonwealth University. Click on the screencast content for any post. I clicked ten minutes ago. The link is still loading. And I do have broadband. Or look at this University of Waterloo blog, and click the screencasts from here. Good annotation and everything, but still boring. Can’t screencast technology do better than this?

Not really. I don’t find anything better yet. Right now I consider screencasting to be big on promise but small on delivery. Both as a producer and consumer. I’m discouraged. I disagree with Meredith Farkas, who suggests the main hangup is located with the many who still rely on dialup access. I do not think that many who would go online for their library needs really do still have dialup access. Rather, I think the primary roadblock to the redemption of screencast technology lies in the development of delivery software. This is still a supply-side, not a demand-side problem.

But I am going to keep poking around. I may yet find my way around the difficulties from my own end, and revise my grievances. It has to be better than this. Look for the update. I have to hope it is on the way.