I had the misfortune of attending a live Web-based class today on a new content management system being used by my organization. I’m sure you can correctly guess exactly how it went. One learner in the class brought things to a grinding halt as she fumbled with multiple windows and documents on her end, trying to click links being shown on the instructor’s shared screen rather than switching to her own browser window and clicking them there, etc. The instructor struggled mightily (but blindly) to assist, but to no avail. After a half hour of this, she finally got frustrated enough to drop out of the session entirely (thankfully – which sounds cruel, but you’ve thought it too), allowing us to proceed.

Of course I use the word “proceed” loosely, as another learner quickly announced that he had become lost in the group exercise 10 minutes ago. Again, brakes were applied, the gear shift was thrown into reverse, and we all got to sit and stare at our fingernails (or Facebook) as the instructor spent the next 15 minutes trying to get this lost soul caught up with the rest of the group. The instructor’s frustration was obvious, the exasperation of the other learners was silent but assumed, and another learning experience was flushed into the abyss.

We’ve all sat through sessions just like this, whether in a virtual classroom or a real one. Does anyone seriously believe that this is the way to learn? And if not, why do we keep trying it?

The problem with live instruction is the pace is inherently limited to the slowest learner in the group. It always has been this way, it always will be this way. There can be only one pace in the classroom, and that pace is typically slow. Live classroom instruction is akin to trying to run a marathon while tied at the waist to a group of other runners, at least one of which is suffering from a bad ankle sprain. Does this make any sense? Of course not. So why do we apply that very approach to education?

Imagine if you could compress your entire K-12 educational experience by eliminating all the downtime spent catering to the slowest student or the time spent controlling the unruly ones. If you could have moved at your own pace, how long would it have taken you to learn everything you did learn under that conventional system? 5 years? Less? (The argument becomes irrational when you consider the intellectual maturation required during the K-12 process – much of which only time and physical growth can provide – but you get the drift.)

Imagine if that slowest student could be spared the everlasting humiliation (and permanently scarred self-esteem) from being personally tended to while the rest of the group stares in disapproval and mockery.

Imagine how much smarter we would be as a society if we weren’t lumped together into a Lowest Common Denominator learning system.

Imagine.

Wouldn’t a better approach for my class today have been to provide us with some pre-recorded instruction (a screencast, for example), some exercise materials to complete at our own pace, an email address (or instant messaging address or phone number) for the instructor to pose questions as needed, and then follow it all up with a live group Q&A session to discuss what was learned? Or better yet, skip the live Q&A session (and the technological snafus that will inevitably accompany it) entirely and allow the group to discuss the course content in an online discussion forum or other virtual collaboration or social media environment?

Wouldn’t that approach be vastly more effective (and pleasant) for everyone involved?

Yes!

I firmly believe that such a blended approach is the way to go.

Sadly, my children – who are currently in elementary school – will be shackled by the antiquated and broken live instruction model for many years to come.

However, we as corporate training developers can start changing this within our organizations now!

The next time someone suggests a live Webinar to replace a classroom-based course, suggest a blended model that utilizes various technologies instead – eliminating the problematic “live” factor wherever possible. Your learners will thank you. Your instructors will thank you. And imagine how much more scalable such an approach would be. Your manager will praise you for the cost savings. Everyone wins!

It’s time we finally admit failure and move on. Seriously.

Sidenote: On the plus side, I wrote this entire (admittedly lengthly – sorry) blog post during the fumble-filled dead time of this ill-fated live training session. No kidding. The irresistible urge to multitask during sessions like these should be completely understandable by anyone who has ever attended one.

Apple has had some memorable ads over the years, the 1984 Super Bowl ad for the original Macintosh of course being the most famous. But the Think Different ad was probably my favorite of all. Not because it pushes any particular product, but because it celebrates a particular mentality: that of using bold, unconventional, creative thinking to push the world forward while most are content to let it stay right where it is.

Are we doing this in the eLearning world? Are we questioning current convention – including popular theory and common academic argument? Are we challenging policy, even at the often very personal risk of managerial disapproval? Are we pushing against the status quo, or are we settling for the “Well, what can one person do?” attitude? Are we fighting for change? Are we thinking differently?

If not, shouldn’t we be?

The term “Mac-like” is often bandied about when talking about software, including in my own ruminations here on eQuixotic. And while most Mac users will see the term and nod in contented understanding, those new to the platform (or those still peering over the fence curiously) may not yet “get it.” And frankly, it’s a hard thing to define or quantify. As far as being Mac-like, there’s not much about Windows that precludes a Mac-like experience in its applications. Windows itself has become increasingly more Mac-like – cosmetically – over the years, though of course the real essence of being Mac-like is still mostly absent on the Windows side and goes deep into the guts of the system itself. But from an application standpoint, one could certainly develop an app for Windows that is in many ways Mac-like. Unfortunately I’ve seen very few examples of this, but it can be done.

Being Mac-like means making the experience not only as painless as possible, but as enjoyable as possible. Can’t work be, dare I say it, fun? Of course it can. Sure, some may dismiss this as shallow cosmetic pandering, but such dismissals tend to be naive and uninformed, typically vocalized by hostile non-Mac users (or those who simply enjoy pain (sickos)).

Let’s examine the topic visually, with a good illustration of Windows-like vs. Mac-like software design: TechSmith’s Camtasia.

Here is Camtasia for Mac:

And Camtasia for Windows:

Note the minimalist appearance of the Mac version, where your content is the focus and the interface does its best to get out of your way. Icons are small and refined, if they exist at all (relying instead on menu commands and keyboard shortcuts). The content is the star here, and the stagehands sit, ably, just outside the spotlight – there when you need them, inconspicuous when you don’t.

The Windows version, on the other hand, does its best to distract (and tire) your eye with circus-like intensity, full of bright garish colors and large, crude icons and visual elements. Everything screams “Look at me!” There’s no soloist on this stage, but a big band of trombones, tubas and drums all clamoring for your attention.

Lest you think I’m being unfair to TechSmith, Camtasia for Windows merely fits the modus operandi of most other Windows apps I’ve used since I’ve been using Windows (1992?). My apologies to TechSmith for using them as the poster child in this particular example. (Can we still be friends?)

Of course there is more to being Mac-like than what a simple screenshot can capture – the way menus work, the way things interact with each other, the way content is brought in and brought out of an application, and on and on. But the screenshots above paint a good introductory picture of the opposing philosophies.

If I’m going to spend many hours a day on my computer (and I am), I much prefer staring at option #1 than option #2. And I appreciate a good developer who appreciates that. Thank you, TechSmith, for going this route with Camtasia for Mac. The destination should be the priority, but the journey need not be neglected.

I mean hey, this thing will effectively get you through your 2-hour commute to the cubicle farm every day:

but do you really want it to?

I love seeing creative ways of explaining new concepts, and a great example of this is Epipheo Studios‘ recent intro to Google Wave.

Simple, engaging, informative and entertaining: it’s a great example of eLearning done right. It’s nice to see folks like Epipheo and Common Craft hard at work creating un-sucky eLearning.

Alas, some might argue that this isn’t really eLearning at all, but simply marketing – an argument with which I would strongly disagree.

Have a look at some of their other work as well. Great, great stuff. I don’t know about you, but as a learner I’d find my yearly corporate eLearning courses on mandatory topics (ugh!) much easier to swallow if they showed even a glimmer of this kind of passion and creativity.

And note the casual (and familiar) narration style. This guy sounds like…well…someone you actually know rather than someone trying to sell you something on late night TV (”Call right now and get a bonus set ABSOLUTELY FREE!“)

Imagine how different the impact of this would be had it been done using bullet points and a typical eLearning narration style from a poorly-chosen voiceover pro (or worse – one of those abominable robovoices).

This is eQuixotic Hall of Fame material, no doubt. Nice work guys.

After re-reading and pondering my last post, I believe I was intentionally vague enough to prevent getting exactly the feedback I need. For those of you who already commented on that previous post, let me apologize for not asking the question in the way I should have asked it. I’m going to try again.

The Powers That Be at my agency have recently signed a large contract with an eLearning development vendor. There are several courses included in this contract, one of which has been assigned to me to manage.

The particular course in question is approximately 2 hours of classroom soft skills training that needs to be delivered in an eLearning format. The content has already been written for the classroom. It needs to be repurposed for eLearning. The course will be developed using a Lectora-style system that produces what is essentially an HTML/javascript page turner. Multimedia (animation, narration, etc.) will be minimal. The course will not be narrated in its entirety, but there may be some snippets of narration here and there. Interactions should be basic form-based questions created within the development application. Graphics will include basic stock images/clip art in the classic “eLearning that looks like a bad PowerPoint presentation” style.

The fixed-price contract that has been signed with the vendor for this course is for 766 hours of development at an average hourly rate of $116 for a total of $89,000+.

This is only one of six courses in this contract, which totals $717,000+.

Because I work for a government agency and these are public funds being spent, I’m morally obligated to watch for (and report) wasteful spending. Particularly for projects to which I am personally assigned. (Please note that I had no input on the solicitation or contract process itself.)

I need to be sure I’m on solid ground before I put myself in the sure-to-be-very-unpleasant position of being the one to say “Hey, wait a minute!”

And that, esteemed colleague, is where you come in.

Is this price – given the basic course parameters I provided – outrageous, questionable, or acceptable? How many hours would you expect to spend on a project of this nature (though my details are admittedly sparse)? Or how much would you expect to pay an outside vendor?

Please share your thoughts in the comments section below. This may be your money we’re talking about.

I’d like to go to the collective experience of my peers for this development question.

You have a two-hour mostly soft skills classroom course you need to convert to eLearning. The content has already been written for the classroom but needs to be reformatted for online delivery. The course will be a basic HTML/javascript page turner with stock graphics sprinkled throughout. No video will be included, but there may be some audio narration scattered throughout (the entire course will not be narrated, however). You will be using a development system similar to Lectora. There will be some basic form-based knowledge checks (multiple choice questions, matching, etc.) that will be developed within your authoring tool. The course will require no custom programming and no extensive interactions or simulations.

Given this basic overview of the project, how many hours of development time would you estimate it to require? I’m looking for ballpark numbers here. If your boss or client asked for a rough number, what would you say?

Your feedback on this question would be appreciated. Please voice your opinion in the comments section below. More on the reason for the question (and why I’m looking for a collective answer) in a later post.

Thanks!

First, allow me to apologize to any readers for my 3 month unintended hiatus. I’ve been stretching my creative wings with some eLearning development side work, and what I can say – there are only so many hours in the day. My “hobby” time used to accommodate my blogging. Now my “hobby” time has become “more work” time. Not sure how I’m feeling about that. I am learning that “moonlighting” means “less sleep.” Ah, I was so naive…

A couple of weeks ago I attended eLearning DevCon 2009 in beautiful Salt Lake City, Utah (the state I am proud to call home). This yearly conference is organized and hosted by Garin Hess and the fine folks at Rapid Intake. Hopefully some of you attended as well. I know one eQuixotic reader did – I know because she “outed” me as a blogger in front of my coworkers. So much for the ability to criticize one’s organization in anonymity. (I forgive you, Tamara!) That said, it’s thrilling to meet a reader at all. Blogging can give you the feeling of talking to oneself alone in the wilderness. It’s nice to know someone out there actually reads your words and can relate to you, if only in distant silence.

Typically the weather in Utah is hot by the end of June. Not so this year. It was beautiful. And the setting is my favorite of any conference I’ve ever attended: historic Fort Douglas on the gorgeous University of Utah campus.

Ambling between buildings on a college campus for workshops is far more enjoyable than shuffling from meeting room to meeting room in some bland hotel or conference center. And being on-campus during the summer, we found ourselves surrounded by kids attending football, basketball and soccer camps. Another refreshing change from the typical professional conference. Ah, the energy of youth! Truly invigorating.

This conference provides all meals onsite. Sure, it’s typical university cafeteria fare, but at least we didn’t have to scurry offsite to find places to eat. The catered dinner the first night was excellent and the keynote speakers were superb. No, they didn’t have David Pogue (ASTD TechKnowledge 2008), but then David Pogue didn’t really have anything to say about eLearning.

The development-centric approach of eLearning DevCon really appeals to me. I personally have little patience for highbrow abstract academic talk about eLearning (and buzzword gobbledegook) that plagues many conferences of this nature. It’s one thing to talk about good eLearning, it’s another thing entirely to actually create it. And from my perspective, many of those who like to talk about it aren’t typically very good at creating it. Me, I want to create good eLearning. So this conference’s concentration on development works for me.

The quality of the sessions was hit and miss, as it always is at conferences of this nature. That said, I was pleased with all but a couple of my sessions. In contrast, at some other conferences I’ve attended I was lucky to get a couple of good sessions – the rest seemed a terrible waste of time.

I would recommend that the eLearning DevCon folks (as well as folks coordinating other conferences) do a better job of screening their presenters. In my view a presenter can’t be poor, mediocre, or even competent at the topics they are presenting. They must be exceptional. Otherwise they have nothing of value to share. If you are, say, presenting on eLearning visual design and the quality of your own visual design is…ahem…questionable, you’ve wasted my time (and money). I want to be inspired.

The presentation skills also varied wildly, from one presenter who read the presentation in its entirety from a script (Ugh!) to a presenter who had no idea what to say at all and leaned on the audience to do the talking. But those were the outliers. Most of the presenters in my sessions were excellent. A couple really stood out.

Sarah Williams (of inContact) presented a session entitled The Missing Link: Rehumanizing eLearning. Sharp, engaging, with a razor wit and a beautiful PowerPoint presentation – Sarah demonstrated exactly what a workshop should be. In fact, this is what eLearning should be. We would do very well indeed to emulate Sarah Williams in our eLearning courses. Her presentation was so good that I’ll forgive her for mentioning text-to-speech tools (Ack!) and, even worse, those horrific 3D human avatars that try (and fail) to mouth your written words. There’s nothing “human” about either of those tools and both should be shunned with extreme prejudice. Those two missteps aside, I thoroughly enjoyed this session.

I attended several sessions by Nick Floro of Sealworks Interactive Studios. I had the pleasure of hearing Nick at the last eLearning DevCon and he was fantastic at both events. His eLearning work is beautiful, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

The folks at Rapid Intake would be wise to give full tenure to Sarah Williams and Nick Floro for future events.

I also really enjoyed the session by Tamara Barbosa (esteemed eQuixotic reader – shout out!) of Ideas Designed Group on using Captivate for simulations in synchronous training events. I only wish we were using Adobe Connect for our synchronous training so we could incorporate Captivate in the way she demonstrated.

I attended several other excellent sessions as well. If only the participants had equaled that level of excellence.

It is always disheartening to see that we, as a community of training professionals, display the same frustrating behaviors as our oft-maligned learners. You know, the behaviors we’re always complaining about and endlessly seeking to stamp out? Wandering into sessions late and leaving early. Sitting in the back row of a half-empty room, forcing the presenter to shout and killing any hope of worthwhile dialog. Working email on laptops and Blackberrys. A guy in front of me in one session actually watched fullscreen ESPN on his laptop during the presentation! Try paying attention to the topic at hand when you have a live TV directly in your field of view. I’m sure his employer would have been impressed (unless his employer was ESPN, in which case they probably would have been impressed).

Me, I was not very impressed at all with the majority of my fellow participants. Frankly, I’ve seen more enthusiastic participation in high school classes than I saw in most of my sessions. Yet we wonder why we can’t get our learners to focus on our eLearning courses? Really???

Gripes aside, this was the best eLearning conference I’ve yet attended, and a big improvement over eLearning DevCon 2007 (I did not attend in 2008). I also preferred this conference to ASTD TechKnowledge, despite the lack of industry “big names” that conferences like TechKnowledge provide.

I hope to attend DevCon 2010. I highly suggest you check this conference out. Maybe I’ll see you there next year! Utah would love to have you!

Sorry to all for my recent lack of writing. Aside from the ever-crazy “life in general,” I was scrambling to finish my submission for the Articulate Guru Awards 2009 – a project I put together in my so-called “spare time” (much to the dismay of my wife and children), independent of my employer. Sadly, there are only so many hours in the day. I need to overcome this pesky need for sleep. But I digress…

I was thrilled to see my work, a visual tour of Evernote desktop and iPhone software (which I love), honored with a Silver award!

In an industry that often seems obsessed with buzzwords du jour, abstract theory and academic gobbledygook, I often wonder if anyone else cares about what I care about: designing visually engaging eLearning that people actually want to pay attention to. This focus typically makes me feel like the odd man out among my peers.

So I was elated to be given some measure of vindication with the award. You can have a look at my entry, along with those of the other winners (to whom I offer my hearty congratulations), if you feel so inclined.

I was particularly surprised when the Articulate staff praised my narration work. Like any other normal human, I hate the sound of my own voice and often wonder how it is perceived by others. I’m a big fan of a casual narration style (save the drama for movie trailers and audiobooks, please) – hence my own guerilla narration work. If you want something done your way, do it yourself, right? The narration was done with a review unit of the Marshall MXL USB.009 microphone (a special thanks to Mike Descher of Marshall for that). I’ll post a detailed review of that microphone, and two other MXL mics, shortly, but the conclusion is obvious: the USB.009 is a great mic for eLearning narration work.

I’ll also be detailing some of the tricks I used to create my Evernote tour. Much to do, much to do! Hopefully we’ll get some new readers as well – the bigger the collaborative pool, the better.

My thanks go to Articulate for their fantastic products and their wonderful staff support.

I’ve written at some length about the importance of fonts in visual design, mainly because so many eLearning developers and presentation designers fail to grasp it – to the great detriment of their products. My rule: use Comic Sans and instantly lose all credibility. But I digress…

I have no doubt that font selection has a tremendous impact on how your content (or product) is perceived by your audience. Believe it or not, the way letters look can often be just as important (if not more so) than what they say. It’s just human psychology. Good marketing folks know this. Good Web designers know this. Good print designers know this. Good eLearning and presentation designers should know this.

I recently had a debate with a good friend of mine regarding the importance of fonts. He, frankly, didn’t see the point – claiming that all fonts ultimately look the same. “Not true” I wailed, aghast at his failure to comprehend such a simple visual design concept. He actually called me a “freak” because I knew the now-famous font Obama used (with great success, obviously) in his presidential campaign (it was Gotham by Hoefler & Frere-Jones, by the way – but of course you knew that).

Fortunately, my friend is not involved in eLearning or visual design in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately, many eLearning and presentation designers share his “who cares” attitude about fonts. And that simply must change.

So, how to get started? Well, you might begin your path to font enlightenment by conscientiously looking for fonts that appeal to you – and learning what those fonts are. Some typographic designer put many long days (months, years) of sweat and tears into those letters you’re looking at. It’s true!

Back in June I mentioned the WhatTheFont?! website, where you can identify (and buy) fonts that catch your fancy. I use this site frequently.

And now MyFonts has increased my love for them by releasing the free WhatTheFont font identification app for the iPhone.

The cool thing about WhatTheFont is you can take a photo of text you like, say a sign on a storefront or the cover of a restaurant menu, and WhatTheFont will try to identify it right on your iPhone. Brilliant!

Get font savvy. Please. And if you own an iPhone, give WhatTheFont a look.

Please have a look at Tony Karrer’s excellent new eLearning information aggregator, eLearning Learning. For all the evangelizing we eLearning people do for communal information, I haven’t found all that many great examples for eLearning developers. Some great blogs (some product-specific) and a few online resources, but nothing like you can find for many other tech-oriented interests. We need to do better. Perhaps it’s just a classic case of the leaky pipes at the plumber’s house.

Or are we still afraid to buy what we’re selling?

Me, I’m subscribing to eLearning Learning’s RSS feed, stat. Might I suggest NewsGator? The NetNewsWire Mac + iPhone combo (from NewsGator) is a particularly delicious way to keep up with all your RSS feeds. I can’t live without these apps.

Note to Tom: NetNewsWire works great on the iPod Touch too.