Why is written step-by-step documentation often better than just sending a Loom video?
Written step-by-step documentation is easier to scan, search, and update than video. Employees can jump to a specific step instead of scrubbing through a 10-minute recording. Written guides are indexed by search engines and internal wikis, while video content is not. When a UI changes, you can update one screenshot instead of re-recording the entire video.
How do written guides compare to video?
| Factor | Written Step-by-Step | Loom Video |
|---|---|---|
| Finding a specific step | Scroll to step 7 instantly | Scrub through video to find the right timestamp |
| Searchability | Full-text search in Notion, Confluence, Google | Not searchable — title and description only |
| Update effort | Replace one screenshot, edit one description | Re-record the entire video |
| Consumption speed | 2 minutes to read a 15-step guide | 5-10 minutes to watch the full video |
| Accessibility | Works in low-bandwidth, quiet environments | Requires audio and video playback |
| Translation | Copy-paste into any translation tool | Requires subtitles or re-recording |
When are videos still the right choice?
- Complex visual workflows — Drag-and-drop interfaces or drawing tools where the motion matters
- Emotional context — Explaining company values, culture, or nuanced judgment calls
- Temporary communication — One-time explanations that do not need to be maintained
For repeatable processes, written guides win. Glyde lets you capture a workflow the same way you would record a Loom — but the output is a polished written guide with annotated screenshots and contextual descriptions instead of a video. Same recording effort, higher-quality output that is searchable, scannable, and easy to maintain.
This answer is part of our guide to screen recording to documentation.