Accessability (working with blind readers)

The main "new technologies" for improved accessibilities are the browser extensions such as blind readers. These work best when content is built in HTML because it is presented as text. When courseware is built in Flash or Java, while it has nice animation capabilities, it is NOT accessible to blind readers.

Many developers have added audio to their courses in order to satisfy the accessibility for visually impaired users. However, this can actually be a disservice. Blind users usually set their blind readers to speak at about 3 times the normal rate since they have to receive all data in a serial manner. If they have to depend on a narrator (often non-professional), the content is fed to them way too slowly. If, however, the content is built using HTML and following best practices (see http://www.readygo.com/index.htm?start_file=sup03/10sup03d.htm) a blind reader can then read this at whatever rate the user has established.

Following good web design practices has additional benefits for users without disabilities:
1. Content can be searched using a search engine, so that users can get to the content of interest more quickly.
2. The content can be delivered to different size screens (you don't have to established a fixed window size)
3. The content can be delivered to other devices such as PDAs and cell phones
4. The end-user can set their own preferred font size/color (through their browser configuration), and they are not forced to read the designer's preferred 8 point light gray font, when the smallest they are able to read is 16point. Also, if they have very high resolution monitors, an 8 point font can be tiny.
5. Content actually downloads faster.
6. Content is chunked in such a way that it can be re-used more easily.

The current move to deliver content as Flash-style movies is good for visual animation features, but is bad for accessibility. Also, for sighted users, the visual animations can serve as bad distractions when they are trying to read the content. A focus on the end-users experience (rather than boosting the designer's portfolio) generally results in more accessible and reusable content.

How to handle learners who don't like your course

A negative attitude from an audience is feedback that can be used to make a course better. If you get a negative reaction from your audience I recommend that you start with by trying to figure out why they have a negative attitude.

My guess is that their experience has been more tailored to the courseware authors' desires than to the learner's desires. That is, the course authors decided what would be
interesting for the learner, and presented this material. Since the
learners were required to take the training, they had no choice but to go
through the material as it was presented.

My suggestion would be to set up the training so that the learners can
choose when and how they view it. When you do a Google search, you get
to choose which links to follow. If you structure your content with
this in mind, you can make it more interesting (or at least less
annoying) to the employees. Most employees want to come in, get the
training as quickly as possible, and get out. So, break the content
down into 15-20 minute segments, and let the learner choose how they
want to see it.

For example, if you do a autoplaying slide show (PowerPoint converted to
the Web), the user has no control over the content. It is displayed at
the speed at which a presenter would narrate it. People can read 3
times faster (at least) than they speak. Also, PowerPoint slide format
(3 lines of text per page) are good as background material for a live
speaker. It is NOT a good format for self-paced learning. There is not
enough information simply in the slides. A good self-paced learning
format allows the employees with 20 years of experience, quickly review
and jump over the stuff they already know, and then they can go to the
"What's New" section. The new employee can go through all the pieces in
more detail. So give multiple tests in the course so that the employees
can evaluate themselves and re-review the material if they don't know
it. If they know the material, let them get done with the training in 5
minutes, if that is all they need.

My recommendation is to
only use multimedia (and other passive elements) when absolutely
necessary. This allows the learner to get through the material on their
time and on their schedule, and they start having a more positive
experience because THEY now have control over the learning session.

Why turning your training into one big video is not a good idea

Recently I have received quite a few calls from customers interested in
using video to do their web-based training. Typically, their concept is
to provide PowerPoint bullet slides alongside their video with
narration. They'd like a tool that can do this, synchronize everything,
and then give a test at the end of the session.

Here are a few thoughts about why the above scenario is a bad way
to go about distance-based training:
1. Length of Video: If you go to YouTube, currently the most successful
on-line video site, you'll find that most of the popular videos are
shorter than 2 minutes. Occasionally, you'll find some that are close
to 5 minutes, but these are the exception. This is a strong lesson for
training. People's attention span to watching content on their
computers is 2-5 minutes. After 2 minutes, many people will drift away,
check their e-mail, work on the latest task their boss gave them, etc.
If you plan to give a 30 minute video, break it up into segments that
are no longer than 2-3 minutes.
2. Narration: Only 10% of the information we learn is via audio (statistic from some PBS documentary). But yet, many people are using PowerPoint presentations (which are clearly incomplete as a self-paced training material) augmented by narration.
They are leaning heavily on the audio to "complete" the skeleton/bullet
points provided by PowerPoint. Think about it...your slides that only
contain 20% of the information necessary for giving the complete
material are being "completed" by a mechanism that only gives 10%
retention. Further, our customers have observed that when courses have
audio, the learners drift away from the visuals (and start checking
e-mail etc.) since the content is being spoon-fed to them. Sometimes
having both audio and visuals is sensory overload, so the reader naturally blocks out one of them (usually the textual/visual content.) Further, in many settings, having audio turned on will distract co-workers, and using headphones is not allowed (e.g. nurses in an open area).
3. Delivery: Videos can be very fickle about whether they will play or
not. The student must have the correct version of the plug-in with the
right codecs (codes to display the video) installed on their computer.
If they don't, they won't see the video. We have seen the best results occur if you convert your video (.mpg) files to Macromedia/Adobe Flash files (.swf). Most people have Flash installed on their computers, and fewer IT departments will block them.
4. Synchronization: When delivering separate pieces of content from the web, synchronization is very difficult. Each multimedia element will download and arrive at a different time. If you need very tight synchronization, you need to embed all the synchronized content into a single file/stream. Unfortunately, this means a longer download time. Users get very impatient and will abandon content if it does not download within 20 seconds and start playing. If it is in one stream/file, you have just taken navigation control away from the reader. Good web sites provide multiple avenues to explore the material. A single "movie" narrows this to just one outlet.
5. Give your reader control: Successful web sites like Google provide the information to the reader so that they can select what to see next when they are ready. Recorded presentations provide the information sequenced as the narrator would like it, and delivered at the narrator's rate. We have seen learners fast forward over the content and just get to the mandatory test at the end. In cases where they couldn't fast-forward, they just walked away from their computers until the video was over, and then they took the test. That is, in neither case, did they watch the video, that was so expensively created.
5. You're not George Lucas: Video requires a good story, professional actors, and professional production; otherwise it looks like a home-made slide show. I have been at some companies that could afford very expensive video productions, and even the best productions bored me to death. Corporate training does not typically have good character development, striking cinematography, and award-winning musical accompaniment. People's expectations regarding video are very high, and unless you can meet those, your readers will disparage your effort.

My rule is that every bit of motion/animation must be justified: Does it add vital informational content or is it just decoration? If it is more "decoration" make sure your boss agrees that the it is necessary for improved return on investment.


So my recommendation is to break up the video into short segments hosted on separate web pages or preferably, avoid it entirely in exchange for more text-based content. Make startup of the video optional so that the user can play/replay when they want to. Place tests/quizzes and other content (especially printable articles) between the videos so that the user has something they can reference, and to force the user to really go through the content. Make test question content context sensitive to the material that is important; however, don't force the reader to watch the video, especially if they already know the material. Otherwise, you will quickly gain an enemy from the experienced users who have been required to take the course.

A bad way to go about creating distance-based training

Recently I have received quite a few calls from customers interested in
using video to do their web-based training. Typically, their concept is
to provide PowerPoint bullet slides alongside their video with
narration. They'd like a tool that can do this, synchronize everything,
and then give a test at the end of the session.

Here are a few thoughts about why the above scenario is a bad way
to go about distance-based training:
1. Length of Video: If you go to YouTube, currently the most successful
on-line video site, you'll find that most of the popular videos are
shorter than 2 minutes. Occasionally, you'll find some that are close
to 5 minutes, but these are the exception. This is a strong lesson for
training. People's attention span to watching content on their
computers is 2-5 minutes. After 2 minutes, many people will drift away,
check their e-mail, work on the latest task their boss gave them, etc.
If you plan to give a 30 minute video, break it up into segments that
are no longer than 2-3 minutes.
2. Narration: Only 10% of the information we learn is via audio
(statistic from some PBS documentary)

. But yet, many people are using
PowerPoint presentations (which are clearly incomplete as a self-paced
training material) augmented by narration.
They are leaning heavily on the audio to "complete" the skeleton/bullet
points provided by PowerPoint. Think about it...your slides that only
contain 20% of the information necessary for giving the complete
material are being "completed" by a mechanism that only gives 10%
retention. Further, our customers have observed that when courses have
audio, the learners drift away from the visuals (and start checking
e-mail etc.) since the content is being spoon-fed to them. Sometimes
having both audio and visuals is sensory overload, so the reader
naturally blocks out one of them (usually the textual/visual content.)
Further, in many settings, having audio turned on will distract
co-workers, and using headphones is not allowed (e.g. nurses in an open
area).
3. Delivery: Videos can be very fickle about whether they will play or
not. The student must have the correct version of the plug-in with the
right codecs (codes to display the video) installed on their computer.
If they don't, they won't see the video. We have seen the best results
occur if you convert your video (.mpg) files to Macromedia/Adobe Flash
files (.swf). Most people have Flash installed on their computers, and
fewer IT departments will block them.
4. Synchronization: When delivering separate pieces of content from the
web, synchronization is very difficult. Each multimedia element will
download and arrive at a different time. If you need very tight
synchronization, you need to embed all the synchronized content into a
single file/stream. Unfortunately, this means a longer download time.
Users get very impatient and will abandon content if it does not
download within 20 seconds and start playing. If it is in one
stream/file, you have just taken navigation control away from the
reader. Good web sites provide multiple avenues to explore the
material. A single "movie" narrows this to just one outlet.
5. Give your reader control: Successful web sites like Google provide
the information to the reader so that they can select what to see next
when they are ready. Recorded presentations provide the information
sequenced as the narrator would like it, and delivered at the narrator's
rate. We have seen learners fast forward over the content and just get
to the mandatory test at the end. In cases where they couldn't
fast-forward, they just walked away from their computers until the video
was over, and then they took the test. That is, in neither case, did
they watch the video, that was so expensively created.
5. You're not George Lucas: Video requires a good story, professional
actors, and professional production; otherwise it looks like a home-made
slide show. I have been at some companies that could afford very
expensive video productions, and even the best productions bored me to
death. Corporate training does not typically have good character
development, striking cinematography, and award-winning musical
accompaniment. People's expectations regarding video are very high, and
unless you can meet those, your readers will disparage your effort.

My rule is that every bit of motion/animation must be justified: Does it
add vital informational content (e.g. shows a trajectory) or is it just
decoration (your boss wants to be the star of his own video)? If it is
more "decoration" make sure your boss agrees that the it is necessary
for improved return on investment.

So my recommendation is to break up the video into short segments hosted
on separate web pages or preferably, avoid it entirely in exchange for
more text-based content. Make startup of the video optional so that the
user can play/replay when they want to. Place tests/quizzes and other
content (especially printable articles) between the videos so that the
user has something they can reference, and to force the user to really
go through the content. Make test question content context sensitive to
the material that is important; however, don't force the reader to watch
the video, especially if they already know the material. Otherwise, you
will quickly gain an enemy from the experienced users who have been
required to take the course.

More thougths on eLearning derailment

One source of the derailment of eLearning has been the prevalence of "solutions looking for problems", i.e. vendor and committee products designed to capture the market. The eLearning decision makers have been driven into purchasing expensive LMS systems without a clear concept of what they are to achieve and without a single course to deliver. I see it over and over where eLearning consumers tell us that they're not yet interested in purchasing an authoring system because they are implementing their LMS (usually a 2-3 year process). This is like building a highway system without ever having owned a car or truck. (A simple web site could actually meet all their initial needs.)

Many corporate issues can be solved by basic Web 1.0 techniques. Course content should be reachable at any time. It should be searchable. This way, when a worker needs to look up some definition, they can go to the "training" web site, do a search on the term, and see the multiple courses that relate to that content. Then, they can jump to the page(s) with the content. All this in a couple of minutes. If the course authors want tracking, that can easily be done without any fancy expensive LMS system.

From what I have seen, the approach that the analysts and much of the community encourage is what we could call a "Web 0.5" or a pre-web approach. This involves simulating the face-to-face training as closely as possible:
1. Content consists of presentation slides converted to some web-deliverable format without any consideration of instructional effectiveness.
2. Student sessions have a fixed start and a fixed finish, with a single test session (one question per page) at the end that can be passed or failed. Random access to the middle of the content is discouraged.
3. The objectives from the instructor's point of view are to deliver the material with the least possible change and to track (maybe) that the student has "completed" their training.

Until this paradigm can be replaced with a more web-like approach, we'll be stuck with federally mandated obsolescent specifications like SCORM, and ROI for eLearning will consist mostly of empire building by the managers who purchase these expensive systems.

Problem Looks for a Solution or is it a Solution looking for a Problem

I think that the best products out there are ones where the designer identifies a problem and comes up with a better solution. From here, sprouts a product that provides innovation. In the case of the "meeting of minds", I believe we are all seeing that the need is to produce and deliver effective training for little money. Within that need, there are many effective ways of doing it. I think that one really good way of solving the problem is to use web-based techniques, starting with Web 1.0 techniques. Of course, Web 1.0 requires a "design pattern" to be applied to training/education, but the approach should use the "best of breed" of both instruction and of web technologies.

I tend to rant about "Solution looking for a Problem" primarily when I see design rationale that was applied as follows.
A. I know how to do X (e.g. build a database)
B. I can deliver training from X (e.g. a database)
C. I can sell X for lots more money than other solutions out there (e.g. a simple web server)
Therefore, a solution based on X is the best solution to training needs. If you're going to use a database, it should be because of your storage/retrieval/reporting needs.

Unfortunately, from my experience, the database delivery systems (aka LMSs) are also the strongest voices in the creation of the specification such as AICC and SCORM. Perversely, before SCORM 2004, the course was the component that had to do all of the navigation, calculation of completion, etc. whereas the Database was just a "memory" for the browser. Restated, the multi-million dollar server/database system just stored results from the course, while the FREE browser the course was being served in had to do all the calculations. Even though the course author could specify mastery score to the LMS, I never saw an LMS that tied the mastery score to the student's score to come up with a "Completion" report. For that matter, I have rarely seen a decent report from an LMS that provides a breakdown of how each question was answered by each student, and whether there was a problem with a specific test question.

I feel the same way about PodCasts and Wikis. They are good tools (Podcasts for disseminating information, Wikis/Content Management Systems for collaborative documentation), but calling them pure training is definitely a stretch ("Solution looking for a Problem"). That's what annoys me so much about the "big" analysts pushing these as the future of elearning. I see most of these technologies as good resources, not training.

The thought behind ReadyGo's SCORM implementation

We realized early on that there was a difference between the specification (e.g. SCORM, AICC) and the "behavior" you want to experience. So we left our tool open to use different LMS-packs when the author creates the course. The author does need to contact us, but
we can produce a new behavior for $200-$500.

What does "behavior" mean? The combination of what the course reports
and what the server stores, and how the server acts based on the data is
what we call "behavior". For example, suppose your LMS forbids students
from retaking a course if they have completed it. In that case, if the
course reports the lesson status as "completed", the students will lose
access to it. To bypass this, the course could report "Passed" as the
status. Or, suppose your LMS overwrites previous status every time the
student retakes the test. In this case, the course has to check status
at the beginning of the course (not always possible), and would need to
ensure that it does not change the status from "completed" to
"incomplete" just because the student revisits the course.

By the way, in our current release of the ReadyGo authoring tool, we
have added a "custom" question type. You can use this to add your own
Flash or JavaScript. You hook up the results computed by your
Flash/JavaScript to the variables needed by ReadyGo, and the tool will
turn your custom interaction into a SCORM or AICC tracked element in the
test. Is this what you were looking for in your "I'd love to see" section?

ReadyGo has also pursued an alternative to LMS which is a
tracking/assessment engine. This uses basic web technologies to store
every test result every time the student responds. The data is stored
in Comma-Separated-

Variable text files (for portability). The web-based
reporting module has a group of reports. The look/feel is driven by
style sheets so that part is customizable. For users needing more
customization, we provide an Excel macro that will pull the results in,
and create the same reports. Since source code is provided, you can
then extend the reports using Excel as a simple database. If you have
dBase knowledge, of course, you can just pull the CSV files into your
database (first column = primary key), and you can create your own
queries. Since this module diverges from SCORM/AICC we can also do
things (easily for the author) like randomizing question and
answer/distratctor order. Also, the user can access all the course
content without needing to re-login every time. That is what I
previously alluded to regarding Web-technologies rather than
face-to-face-ported-to-web.