@CDM – Silverback is aimed at a different market to ScreenFlow, and although the feature-set is similar, the workflow is completely different and aimed at usability testing rather than screencasting. From the project/session management in Silverback to the fact that mouse-clicks are recorded despite being invisible (in ScreenFlow, mouse-clicks become visible DURING the recording) – Silverback is much better (not to mention cheaper and compatible with more operating systems) for the job it’s designed for. And naturally, ScreenFlow is better for screencasting.

@Joe L. – Thanks for the advice. In our usability tests of the site none of the participants had trouble finding out more about what the software does. The target audience is web-savvy designers and developers, so it really doesn’t matter if less experienced web users hesitate or don’t realise they have to scroll. Your point highlights why basing a site’s layout design on the results of usability testing rather than on gut instinct or previous experience is important.

>Both also appear to be incapable of capturing keyboard and mouse activity very well (e.g. showing modifier keys being held down, indicating drag operations, showing which mouse button is pressed).

Yeah, this is annoying. I’d like that. I believe there are some hacking tools that record this…

That said, either program could do the job of the other in a pinch and do it well with minor changes. Both also appear to be incapable of capturing keyboard and mouse activity very well (e.g. showing modifier keys being held down, indicating drag operations, showing which mouse button is pressed).

What’s the big deal?

my point, though, is that the design of the page should make it obvious that the page content continues. If they had used the Silverback application with people using various screen sizes and resolutions, they probably should have picked up on some hesitation from some users as they looked for navigation links or wondered where the rest of the content was.