Actually, the time that I wake up is largely a function of the volume in my bladder. So there is something to be said for volume.
My apologies for the intrusion, Thunderdog, but the egregious stupidity of the alleged PV relation causes me to spew bile-laden spittle on my volume-less trading screen whenever it's proponents rear their peckerheads. I am embarrassed at how much time I spent first trying to prove it, then to disprove it, only to find that there is no relation or anti-relation in any mathematical realm I am facile in.
I watched the short video. It just doesn't do it for me. To be candid, I was initially intrigued by ProfLogic's use of volume charts, so I had a look. My review was hardly exhaustive, but I saw no incremental benefit in the way that I interpret the market action. It was neither particularly worse nor better for me on balance. Sometimes there were entry setups at roughly the same time and sometimes there were not. So for me, it was six of one and half dozen of the other, more or less. This is consistent with my own current view that volume doesn't provide me with useful incremental information. Again, I limit my observation to my own limited review. Others may see a benefit that I don't. I might add that the volume chart put me at a slight disadvantage, because I have grown accustomed to the cadence of my time-based charts, which are very short term. But that's just me.
The depth of either side of the inside market does not constitute volume. Lifting of the bid or ask merely confirms my point that price may lead volume.
The T&S you see is based on an algorithm to match the book against trades. For latency and other reasons (like a big trade going "upstairs"), T&S is highly unreliable as to whether a particular trade was at the bid or ask, or as to what either of those even were at the time of the trade. This is easy to see when you grab the data stream yourself.