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.

When a colleague approaches you with the teaser “You just GOTTA hear this,” you know you’re in for something truly great.  And of course by truly great, in most cases, I mean truly bad.  And truly bad is exactly what it was.

And what it was was an eLearning course – narrated, produced and published by a peer in another department (and other state). Now, if you follow this blog, you know I’m a firm believer that just about anyone can effectively narrate an eLearning course – given a good script, the right equipment, and some common sense.  That said, we have all been subjected to commoner narration gone horribly wrong. And this was exactly the case here.  This particular narration was a textbook example of what not to do.  It was as if he had followed a checklist of Dos and Don’ts but had mistakenly confused the two columns.

Poor equipment (i.e. $10 headset microphone): check.

Recording in the office with too much ambient noise: check.

Trying to read the narration on the fly while fumbling to manually time the animations: check.

Lots of pregnant pauses, dead air, and voiceless mouse clicking: check.

These missteps guaranteed disaster, but what truly took this narration to epic un-greatness was the delivery style.  So over stylized and overdramatized that my first thought (which I inadvertently vocalized) was “Where’s the Benny Hill background music?”  The faux folksy enthusiasm gave the narration a distinctive Hee Haw vibe.  The adjective “cringeworthy” in this case would be too kind.

It seems the first instinct of a non-professional narrator when the recording light goes red (after panicking, of course)  is to make every attempt to sound like their idea of a professional narrator.  You know, the guys drop a full octave to try to sound as low and resonant as possible (Voice of God – gone wrong) and the gals jump a full octave for that dainty feminine touch.  By adding as much dramatic flair to the script as they can and rolling the inflection like a Six Flags coaster, they hope to pull off the charade.  If a little inflection is good, you see, then a lot of inflection must be better!  Enunciating every syllable with the care and attention of a diamond cutter and speaking unnaturally slowly to allow the listener to savor your words make the auditory illusion complete.

Unfortunately, these amateurish tricks almost never work.  Typically the results of such an approach are catastrophic.  There are a few things the non-professional narrator needs to recognize – and accept.

First: You are not a professional voiceover artist – but that’s OK!  You don’t really need to be.  This is an eLearning course, not an animated Disney feature. When was the last time you left a classroom-based course and thought “Wow, that instructor had a terrible speaking voice!”  Probably never. It just doesn’t happen.  Sure, we’ve all had bad instructors with terrible delivery, but their voice quality (aside from volume level) is typically not the issue.  All of us have “good” voices, in our own unique way.  Sure, we don’t all sound like these guys, but that’s why these guys get paid the big bucks:

Second: Your voice doesn’t sound as bad as you think it sounds.  We all hate the sound of our own voice.  I’ll bet even James Earl Jones cringes a bit when he hears his own voice on playback.  It’s human nature.  I hated the sound of the first course I narrated.  I thought for sure everyone else would hate it too.  Then I started getting positive feedback.  Surprisingly, they liked me.  They really liked me!  And they’ll like you too – if you can avoid the missteps of my Hee Haw-loving colleague from my example above.  (Sidenote: I still hate the sound of courses I narrate.  I’ve learned to live with it.)

Third: Delivery, not the character of your voice, is the key.  If you can read a script and sound like the natural you, you’ll do just fine. You don’t want your eLearning course sounding like those Hollywood voiceover guys anyway.  In fact, from my perspective eLearning narration that’s too good often comes off as synthetic and disingenuous.  And no one would necessarily want to listen to one of the guys in the video above narrate a two-hour course on sexual harassment.  Please folks, leave the dramatics for the movie trailers, the audio books, and the radio commercials – and the professionals who voice them.  Natural is what you’re looking for.  Like you, George Clooney doesn’t sound like James Earl Jones, but he can still do a good voiceover.  Why?  Because he knows delivery.  Actors aren’t hired because they were born with golden pipes.  They’re hired because they can recite a script and make it sound real.

Fourth: a good narration starts with a good script. Bad script = bad narration, no matter how great a narrator you are. Be sure to give your script plenty of attention before you start recording. Pare down unnecessary wordiness. Use contractions for a more informal tone. Inject a little humor to help connect with the learner. No one likes a stuffy classroom instructor, and the same applies to eLearning.

Voiceover professionals are a great source for advice on writing narration scripts. See Steve Anthony’s suggestion here, and check out Shelley McIntyre’s excellent document on formatting your script for voice talent (which could be you or a hired voiceover pro).

And of course there’s no reason you can’t (or shouldn’t) pay for voice talent if you have the resources to do so (and lack the time to do it yourself).  There are plenty of talented and experienced professionals that can provide a high quality narration that doesn’t sound unnatural (read: “too Hollywood”) or disingenuous.  You simply need to tell these folks what you’re looking for – and provide a script that reflects the style you’re after.

For the love of all that’s holy, please, please (please!) avoid those robotic auto-voices you see advertised for eLearning development. Shun them like the plague. Sure, clicking a button and watching your script get auto-narrated is an appealing prospect for many reasons – the benefit of your learner not being one of them. Nothing tells your learner you don’t care about them (edit: you really, really dislike them) than to subject them to these ridiculously phony narrations. And anyone with an ear can recognize these as phony by the end of the first sentence. How would you like to sit in a classroom and listen to an animatronic “instructor” synthesizing a canned script? Yeah, me neither. People like to listen to real people, especially when they’re trying to learn, and people are never going to embrace eLearning until we can inject some humanity back into it. Your learners deserve a narration voiced by a real human – and the time/money it takes to do it.

I often define the sound and style of eLearning narration I enjoy as “natural.” But what is “natural” exactly? I’m not quite sure how to define it, but I know it when I hear it. And so do you. But how can you accomplish it? To start, by avoiding the obvious faux pas outlined above. Also, try to read your narration at the same pace and style that you would normally speak it. Yes, it sounds much easier than it really is. This will require some practice. As I record, I find it helpful to read ahead several words with my eyes so I can verbalize the script at a natural pace. You will likely end up with more errors this way (necessitating more takes), but the end result will be worth it.

Here’s an example of a screencast narration that to me sounds natural and authentic, making me feel comfortable as the learner/listener:

Note the natural (read: fast) speaking pace, genuine-sounding enthusiasm and friendly, approachable tone. Would this guy be hired for a movie trailer voiceover? No way. But he sounds great in this context. And you can too, if you can just avoid the temptation to try too hard.

With a small investment in some quality recording equipment (see some of my equipment reviews on this blog), a good script, and a smart approach, you too can create your own eLearning narration that your learners not only won’t be repelled by, but will actually enjoy. And when a learner enjoys a course, odds are pretty good that he/she will actually learn something from it.

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?

To start, let me say that eQuixotic is not a hardware/gadget review blog. That said, hardware is used in the creation of eLearning and presentations. Thus, people creating eLearning and presentations purchase hardware, and are often faced with hardware buying decisions. Me, I love to research every product I purchase. Unfortunately, most online reviews are found on retailer sites and consist of precious little substance, ranging from (5 stars) “I LOVE THIS, IT’S THE BEST EVAH!!!” to (1 star) “THIS IS JUNK AND IT SUCKS AND I HATE IT!!!” Sadly, reviews cannot be sorted or filtered by reviewer intelligence (or lack thereof). Thus I often rely on blogger reviews to help guide my purchasing decisions, as bloggers tend to throw some real meat into their reviews.

Unfortunately, I could not find any detailed reviews for the LaCie 2big Quadra external RAID hard drive, so I was forced to purchase on blind faith. To my peril. To spare others my fate, I thought I’d post my assessment.

Now having essentially given away the “ending” of my story, let’s back up and fill in the details, shall we?

The LaCie 2big Quadra is a two-disk external RAID hard drive enclosure. For those of you unfamiliar with RAID, it essentially gives you the option of mirroring your data on two (or more) drives, protecting you from data loss if one of those drives should fail. I like this idea, as I don’t have to rely on two separate external hard drive enclosures (and two FireWire cables, and two power cords) to accomplish the same task. I purchased this drive in the 2 TB configuration (two hard drives, each 1 TB in size) from Dell’s website.

The “Quadra” designation refers to the connectivity options, offering all four standard connections in a single box: eSATA, USB 2.0, FireWire 400 and FireWire 800. Choice is good, particularly when choice includes the fastest options available (eSATA and FireWire 800) as well as the reassurance of universality (USB 2.0 and FireWire 400). When I received the drive and began to unbox it, I realized, to my dismay, that I didn’t own a FireWire 800 cable and would have to rely on FireWire 400. But to my delight, LaCie included all four cable types in the box (USB, FireWire 400 and 800, and eSATA). Bravo, LaCie, Bravo! I was soon in business. Which is when the trouble began. But before I get to that, let’s lay this review out all official like.

When evaluating an item like this, I have three criteria to judge (aside from price, of course):

1. Functionality / Usability

3. Design

I’ll assess the 2big Quadra based on these three criteria. Ready? Let’s go!

1. Functionality / Usability

Um…err….let’s come back to this one.

2. Quality

To say this thing is built like a tank would be an understatement. It is substantially larger than most external hard drives, obviously, as it houses two drives. The body is solid aluminum and heavy. Not only would this thing likely survive a fall from the desk to the floor without a scratch, but it would probably do some serious damage to your floor in the process. I love stuff that feels indestructible, and the 2big Quadra delivers. My old external hard drives look (and feel) like cheap toys next to this thing.

5 stars for build quality. No question.

3. Design

In our modern world of space-sucking digital media, where many gigabytes of audio and video quickly fill our hard drives to capacity, external storage is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. So why is so little attention paid to the design of these devices that clutter our desks? I had four external hard drives on my desk, of varying sizes and design – and they all looked like cheesy afterthoughts. It was a silly looking mess. I spent extra money for a beautiful computer – I really wanted a beautiful external hard drive to compliment it. The 2big Quadra was the only drive I found that fit that criteria. Designed by Neil Poulton, the 2big has an industrial elegance and simplicity that compliments my aluminum iMac. If Apple were to design and build an external hard drive, it would probably look and feel a lot like this one. And that’s high praise indeed. This is a peripheral I am not ashamed to have on my desk. The ribbed aluminum not only looks great, but provides more surface area for heat dissipation, which should reduce the frequency of fan noise. Unfortunately, this is not the case with the 2big Quadra. More on that in a minute.

As beautiful as this drive is, I’m disappointed by Mr. Poulton’s decision to include the Great Blue Glowing Orb (see photo of drive at the top of this review). Sure, it looks cool. Until you turn it on. What is it about electronics designers/manufacturers that makes them think that we consumers like to be bathed in the cold blue light of our gadgets? The light on this thing, which glows whenever the drive is active, illuminates nearly my entire home office at night. Between my microphone, my printer’s illuminated control buttons, and my external hard drive, I don’t need any other office lighting. And that’s not good – particularly when you’re trying to scare yourself silly with a little late night gaming in Left 4 Dead. After awhile, I wanted to take a hammer and smash this cycloptic eye to smithereens. When it comes to superfluous lighting, Mr. Poulton, less is more. In the case of the 2big Quadra, much less. Please. At least give me an off switch for the light (or a convenient cable to cut).

4 stars for the beautiful design, knocked down from 5 stars only for the huge glowing orb.

Now for the really bad news.

1. Functionality / Usability

One would think an external hard drive’s functionality and usability would be a no-brainer. Plug it in, turn it on, and let Time Machine (on a Mac) or the bundled software that comes with the drive (on a Windows machine) do all your backup work for you automatically. Cake, right? Unfortunately, LaCie has seen fit to make this simple task as infuriatingly annoying to the user as possible with a power management and cooling system that seems designed by Satan himself. For an enclosure that is essentially one gigantic aluminum heat sink, you’d think cooling fans would be rarely needed. And you would be wrong. LaCie’s claim on its product page:

The sturdy, aluminum heat sink design—with 60% more surface area for heat dissipation—keeps it quiet and safe.

sounds scientifically rational, but LaCie and I clearly have differing opinions on the definition of the word quiet. The fans on this drive fire up the moment you flip the power switch and continue, vacillating in volume level, almost indefinitely. The power switch is a three-way affair: Off, On, and Auto. The implication of Auto is that the drive sleeps when you don’t need it and spools itself up automatically when you do. Which is how my other external hard drives have always worked. Unfortunately, the 2big Quadra assumes you need it about every, oh, two minutes or so. I have my Time Machine settings configured to back up my data every hour. So I should only be hearing this beast huff and puff every 60 minutes, giving me 59 minutes of peaceful tranquility. Not so. The drive “goes to sleep” (I use the phrase loosely) with a couple of loud clicks, and you think all is well. Two minutes later (not an exaggeration), the drive spools up again and the fans kick into action. Why? I don’t know. The computer isn’t feeding it any data – it has no reason to awake. Sometimes the drive (with noisy fans) spools itself up even if the computer is asleep. Since my office is next to the master bedroom, I have to turn this drive off before I go to bed. I’ve never had to do that with any external hard drive I’ve owned. So why is cooling fan action needed when 1) the surrounding air is a cool 70 degrees, and 2) the drives aren’t actively reading and writing data? I have no idea. They certainly aren’t heat activated, as the air that blows out of the unit is not noticeably warm. If only I were able to change the settings for the fan activation.

How loud is it? If you’ve heard an iMac under full load (say, in the aforementioned Left 4 Dead gaming event), it sounds a lot like that. Why should an inactive hard drive enclosure make as much noise as a 24″ all-in-one computer that has to cool a dual-core processor, LCD display, video card, and hard drive, crammed into the slimmest of spaces, all being pushed to their limits in a graphically-intensive 3D shooter? An explanation escapes me. At least when I’m gaming I have the sounds of shotgun blasts and screaming zombies to drown out the fan noise. But when I’m not gaming, this external hard drive is a noisy little companion that just won’t shut up. The iMac (under normal load) is the faintest whisper – the 2big Quadra is a stiff summer wind.

My good faith assumption would be that I simply have a defective unit. But LaCie’s failure to respond to my question (submitted via their website) about the power and fan cycling, while a previous question about RAID modes was answered promptly, leads me to fear the worst: this is just a bad design. And not just bad design, but unbearably bad design. If you are, like me, someone who needs computing silence (or near-silence), this little beast will drive you quite mad.

Forget narrating an eLearning course while this thing is powered on. I never had to power down my other external hard drives while I recorded narration. They quietly minded their own business. The 2big Quadra, on the other hand, just can’t bear not being the center of my attention.

To design and build such a beautiful peripheral and then destroy it with bad internals is like spiking the ball and doing a touchdown celebration dance on the 1 yard line. You were so close to greatness, LaCie, so close indeed. But the only applause I can offer is the sound of my hand smacking my forehead in utter disbelief.

1 star for Functionality / Usability. Yes, it backs up your data, and it does so quickly. But it makes so much noise while doing so (and while not doing so) that you’ll prefer to just turn the thing off entirely. This drive is going back to Dell post haste. And if they charge me a restocking fee, I’m going to be really upset.

If you detest gratuitous noise (and light) from your computing peripherals, my suggestion is to stay far, far away from the LaCie 2big Quadra. I’m disappointed to have to add this product to my eQuixotic Hall of Shame. If anyone has any suggestions for external hard drives that may meet my criteria, please let me know in the comments section. I doubt I’ll find anything as nice looking and solid as the 2big Quadra, but I certainly hope to find something quieter (and less, um, illuminating).

If the opinions in this review seem a little, er, extreme, realize that it’s due to my absolute loathing of noisy electronics and my frustration with great design that turns out to be only skin deep. I admit, I demand a lot from my stuff. If noisy electronics (and room-illuminating blue lights) don’t bother you, than the 2big Quadra may be a perfect storage solution for you.

Personally, I cannot recommend it.

NOTE: If anyone at LaCie is reading this, thinks I may have had a defective unit, and would like to loan me a review unit for a reevaluation, I would be happy to oblige.

UPDATE 7/6/09: Still no response from LaCie regarding the behavior of the drive, nor a response from Dell regarding my return request. I am preparing for a return nonetheless by doing a 7-pass wipe (secure erase) of this drive to remove my data from it. Which Apple’s Disk Utility estimates will take…2 days 5 hours. With fans (and light) in FULL INTENSITY mode.

Two days of this and I may end up quite mad. Farewell, sanity. I hardly even knew ye.

UPDATE 7/9/09: The noisy beast has been wiped, silenced, boxed, and is on a UPS truck on its way back to Dell (who provided stellar customer service on the matter – thanks Dell!). I should have tossed a pair of earplugs into the box just for grins.

UPDATE 7/12/09: I can’t go without data backup (not even for a week), so I promptly found (and ordered) my replacement drive…the LaCie d2 Quadra. Yeah, I know, I know – once bitten, twice shy. But I loved the look and build quality of the 2big Quadra. Other drives on the market typically have cheap plastic bodies, most offer USB 2.0 but no Firewire, and some have their own special quirks (the tendency of the WD My Book models to unmount themselves spontaneously on the Mac, for example).

The LaCie d2 shares the same industrial design (also by Neil Poulton) as the 2big, but in a smaller size. I probably would not have considered this drive until I saw this word in the product description: fanless. Ode to joy! The d2 still sports the Great Blue Glowing Orb, albeit a more petite version than that of the 2big Quadra. I assume the room illumination should be reduced, and with no fan to drive me crazy, this might be the drive for me. User reviews on retailer sites praise the lack of fan noise, though some have gripes about the drive noise. We’ll see if this one will actually sleep when it should. I wish there were quality bare enclosures available on the market that would let me select my own hard drive. The Western Digital Caviar Green drives (lower power consumption, reduced noise) look intriguing. LaCie should consider selling bare enclosures for those who would like such an option – think of all the hassles they could avoid with returned units from failed hard drives!

Stay tuned for a review of the LaCie d2 Quadra…

Create an interface like that of the Bulk Rename Utility. Why do I hate so much of the software on the Windows platform? Bulk Rename Utility says it all with a single screenshot. Thanks guys for the succinct visual of that which I struggle to verbalize.

Hat tip to Gruber (Daring Fireball).

Yes, I’m digressing to the topic of Apple’s App Store again, but I am ever baffled that developers/creators/authors could allow glaring flaws to appear in their eLearning courses, presentations, websites, printed ads, etc.

Everyone is trying to grab some of that sweet, sweet App Store cash right now. With the iPhone rising to the top-selling smartphone spot (and the number two handset in the U.S. overall – no mean feat given its $199 price tag and required monthly data plan), there is much booty to be made selling iPhone apps to the masses. Ahhh, why did I lose interest in programming after my Apple II+ days? Note to self: never follow the advice of a high school career counselor again.

Sorry, I’m getting way off track.

So your app finally makes its triumphant appearance to the clamoring horde in iTunes after many months of development. Cause for celebration! Time to kick back and watch the flood of money pour in.

But wait, you failed to spell the name of your own company correctly on the app’s icon? The first thing your millions of potential customers will see, and thus judge (fairly or not) your product on???

Wow. Just wow.

Worth my $3.99? Probably not.

Next!

Note: to add insult to injury, the link to the Definition Fitness company website in iTunes is broken. Double fail!

Like many other tech nerds, I awaited Google’s announcement of its first Android-based device yesterday with bated breath. Alas, like many other tech nerds, I was ultimately disappointed with what I saw.

Without a doubt, the mobile device user has been abused for years by poorly-designed and implemented operating systems that seemed to delight in the befuddlement (and subsequent rage) of their hapless victims owners. Then Apple unveiled the iPhone in January 2007, essentially telling pocket computingdom “You’re mad as heck, and you don’t have to take it anymore!” The response has been overwhelming. Not only evidenced by sales of the iPhone itself (I myself being a shamelessly enamored owner), but by the frantic responses of its competitors, including HTC’s new TouchFLO interface, which is basically a shiny new coat of paint covering up the much-maligned rusty heap that is Windows Mobile.

So when Google announced its new Android mobile operating system, was anyone really surprised? Well, yes, actually – as Google doesn’t really do operating systems (or great software for that matter) – but handheld computing is the new It Girl, and everyone is rushing to bring her flowers. So why not Google?Fast forward several months to yesterday, when the first device featuring Google’s Android platform, the HTC G1, was finally revealed to the world. Me, I had an immediate and undeniable “Uh oh” moment. Yes, the hardware looks homely and clunky and outdated right out of the box, but I had seen “leaked” photos of the device already, so I was already prepared for that letdown. But looking past the ugly hardware in the promo pics, my eyes immediately went to a single element: that huge, Vista-esque analog clock haphazardly placed on the screen.

My brain instantly asked itself two things.

First, “What’s up with the big, ugly clock?”

And second (and more importantly), “Why does the big, ugly clock say 9:11 when the digital clock immediately above it and to its right says 2:47???”

Now, I consider it a personal curse to obsess over what some would consider meaningless details (typos on my blog notwithstanding). So I tried putting this inconsistency out of my mind. “Self,” I said, “it doesn’t matter. No one else cares. You’re just being you again.”

But then Gizmodo noticed. And if Gizmodo noticed, then perhaps countless others did too (with many more noticing, obviously, because Gizmodo pointed it out). Which leads to the obvious question: “How could Google/T-Mobile/HTC not notice this too???” I mean, typos in body text on a website or in a brochure are bad enough. But for the G1 to throw aside the curtain and step, arms outstretched, into the blazing spotlight, under the anxious gaze of a billion curious souls, with its fly wide open and toilet paper stuck to its shoe? Inconceivable! Yet, there it was, for all the world to see.

The issue therein was so aptly described by Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo:

The problem with the clocks would have never escaped Apple’s ferocious attention to detail, but it is not the image itself that’s so troubling. It is what it symbolizes, what is missing at Android’s most fundamental level: Attention to detail. 

“Ferocious attention to detail.” A beautiful phrase. And a rule we should all live by. How many times have you seen a big, important PowerPoint presentation featuring a glaring typo on the title screen? (With much audience forehead smacking ensuing.) Had such a thing as the Google G1 faux pas happened when the iPhone was announced, Steve Jobs would have had a public hanging of the employees responsible. Right there. On the stage. On that you can set your watch and warrant (whatever that quaint old saying means).

Equally perplexing is the fact that despite this glitch being publicly outed by Gizmodo last night, T-Mobile hasn’t scrambled to rectify the situation on its website. At least not as of the time of this writing. Which to me implies that they don’t see it as a problem at all. Which in itself is yet another problem. And now I’m rambling.

Lest you think I’m making a mountain of a molehill, Diaz does point out other obvious Android interface problems. Alas, it’s not just the clock. Though the clock is bad enough to be alarming. (Heh, unintentional pun!)

As I mentioned in my Judging a Book By Its Cover post, the problem with prominent, glaring flaws like this is that they imply a legion of other, less-glaring flaws lurking slightly below the surface. And they convey an “I don’t really care what you think” mentality. Whether true or not.

How many eLearning courses have you seen featuring such spectacularly visible errors that you naturally asked “Did anyone actually read this thing before publishing?” Some of them may have even been yours.

God is indeed, as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe so succinctly put it, in the details.

Sidenote: a friend of mine who has been singing Android’s praises for months, boldly proclaiming it the true “iPhone Killer,” called me last night to ask how much I thought he could find a used iPhone for, and how he could hack it to run on his T-Mobile plan.

Ouch.

Google, you lost them at “Hello.”

The debate rages whether Apple’s iPhone is as revolutionary a device as Apple claims it to be – with certain feature omissions (copy/paste and MMS being the two most-often mentioned) providing plenty of fuel for criticism.

Less open to debate is the point that the iPhone offers what is probably the most beautiful user interface on any electronic device to date. Even the most rabid iPhone haters tend to concede that the software and the large, super-responsive touchscreen provide an immensely enjoyable way in which to interact with the device, and Apple’s competitors are scrambling to cobble up their own “less offensive than before” interfaces. Including HTC’s valiant “pay no attention to the Windows Mobile behind the curtain” TouchFLO paint job.

For the sake of this post, let’s assume my “iPhone’s most beautiful interface” argument is legitimate. So say you’re about to roll out a new app to millions of interface-conscious iPhone users who have been wowed by its beautiful visual design. You hope this new app, though inexpensively priced, will net you a handsome profit via the magical power of volume. How do you make your critical first impression? Why, you have an 8-year-old design your icon and splash screen in Microsoft Paint, of course!

Now, I won’t speak for you, but I’ll tell you exactly what this visual design mess tells me: the developer doesn’t care one whit what I think about him or his app. And it tells me (whether accurately or not) that he probably spent as much time working on the functionality of the app as he spent on its visual presentation. Which is to say, not much.

He couldn’t even decide whether the title of his app deserved proper capitalization (my opinion: no).

Worth my time or my measly 99 cents? Not a chance.

Frankly, the vast amount of shovelware/crapware that is suddenly flooding the iTunes App Store is disconcerting to me, to say the least. There are a great many brilliantly designed, powerful, and beautiful apps available (BeatMaker being a stunning example). Particularly for the App Store being a mere two months old. But for every one of those, there are ten (or more) that may have been fit for the Windows 3.1 world, but are not even remotely in the same star system as the iPhone world. I had high hopes that the iPhone would bring beautiful design to the masses. But instead, the masses are bringing their horrific design to the iPhone.

You can judge a book by its cover. What does the visual design of your eLearning courses tell your learners?

I stand by my claim that the iPhone will revolutionize mobile eLearning. But not if your mobile eLearning looks anything like Car Finder (or Car finder, natch).

Sidenote: had I been the App Store reviewer who received this submission from the developer, I would have rejected it. Immediately. With extreme prejudice.

Recently I’ve been pushing our organization to focus on nurturing more in-house eLearning development skill versus frequently relying on outside vendors who give us mundane eLearning at outrageous prices. “We can do far better for far less!” I wail. Fortunately, my cries are finally being heard, and we now seem to be heading in the right direction. Albeit cautiously.

A few weeks ago I was having a spirited discussion with one of the training managers in our organization regarding this shift. While the discussion was mostly positive, she did make a comment regarding dedicating more staff to in-house development that alarmed me. The comment went something like this:

“Why would we pay someone X thousand dollars a year just to sit and do this [makes dismissive gesture of fingers typing on a keyboard] all day?”

[insert sound of needle scratching vinyl record here]

What???

OK, let me get this straight: eLearning is supposed to be this magical contraption that saves us a bajillion dollars in training costs, yet building this magical contraption is nothing more than a trivial clerical task that involves the simple press of a button and turn of a few dials? Seriously?

And if eLearning development is such a menial, low-grade task, why are we paying vendors high-grade dollars to do eLearning development for us? Someone please explain the logic here.

With this kind of attitude, it’s no wonder our eLearning is boring, mundane, unimaginative, and mightily resisted by the majority of our learners.

The biggest reason we are struggling with getting our learners to embrace the concept of eLearning is not that the concept of anytime, anywhere learning isn’t sound. The biggest reason is that we have chosen to represent this new way to learn with some of the most offensively bland products imaginable for the sake of a higher ROI. Can we not see how we are sabotaging ourselves here?

Personally, I fail to see how the value of a course developer who sits around a table with a bunch of SMEs to hash out the course content is of more monetary worth than the eLearning developer who has to step in and put that content into a compelling eLearning product. Who, by the way, needs to be an expert of Photoshop, Fireworks, visual design basics, typography, color, audio recording and editing, video recording and editing, PowerPoint, Flash, HTML, JavaScript, Captivate, Articulate, and on, and on, and on. Not to mention an efficient writer and grammarian whose task it is to clean up the often-jumbled mess the course writers/SMEs provide (particularly the almost-always horrible narration script).

Perhaps I should feel good knowing that my work is done so quickly and the quality of my product is so great that my eLearning-ignorant peers think the work involved is really no big deal. But, surprisingly, I suddenly don’t feel good about that. Not at all.

If we can’t convince the people with the budget that eLearning is only going to save us money if we put enough money into eLearning to create compelling learning experiences, then eLearning is surely doomed.

That, or I need to quit my job and get in on some of this overpriced big-dollar vendor-created eLearning action, while the getting is good.

So if you’re in a corporate training shop with a lack of in-house talent and you have big outsourcing dollars to wildly throw around…call me.

My organization, like many large organizations (and many if not most eLearning development professionals, for that matter), has bought into the Reusable Learning Object (RLO) concept with reckless abandon, implementing a Learning Content Management System (LCMS) (shudder) which shall remain nameless (but rhymes with Neato HorsePen).

This system is not only a horrifically cumbersome environment in which to develop, but, from my experience, it churns out the most banal eLearning imaginable. Personally, I avoid developing in it at all costs. And when I find myself in the pitiable role of the learner, faced with a course that was developed in our LCMS, I do my best to avoid letting out an audible groan while readying my mouse pointer on the Next button.

I found the monotony of flash cards in grade school more tolerable.

RLOs, the theory goes, are merely building blocks (flash cards?) of information that can quickly and easily be lifted from one course and dropped into another. Like a big bin of homogenous parts that just so happen to fit whatever you wish to bolt them to. Why, it sounds almost, well, too good to be true!

It is.

Actually, on paper, the theory makes perfect sense. Achieving peak efficiency is, after all, a noble goal. It’s what keeps business moving ever forward. And with training dollars always in short supply, getting the product out as quickly and cheaply as possible is the name of the game. Why recreate content over and over again?

In practice, however, things start to crumble quickly. The problem is this: if the goal is learning content that’s so generic it can easily be grafted seamlessly from one course into another, it’s doubtful that content will provide any real interest to the learner in the first place. If we’re focused on making the content reusable, are we also focused on making it interesting?

And it’s not just the interchangeable nature of the content that causes the problem. It’s also the authoring tool itself. Because a tool that is designed to assemble a collection of existing parts and quickly burp out a product is typically not a tool that facilitates creativity or innovation. You know, the things that actually make learning intriguing and enjoyable.

Read the sales pitch for any LCMS product. You’ll inevitably find the descriptors “scalable,” “rapid,” “efficient,” and “easy.” You’ll also find a lot of talk about “ROI.” What you won’t find are the adjectives “interesting” or “good.”

I won’t argue that you can’t create compelling eLearning using this type of authoring tool. I will argue, however, that this type of authoring tool doesn’t encourage you to create compelling eLearning. In fact, compelling eLearning is created in spite of such a tool, not because of it.

I tend to see the end product of RLO-based systems (our RLO-based system, anyway) like I see fast food. You have the all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, and sesame seed bun. All the necessary ingredients neatly and methodically laid out for quick and easy assembly. And while this system enables you to crank out that burger rapidly and cheaply, your customer ends up with a meal that neither satisfies the palate nor provides any real nutritional value.

We need to reassess the implementation of the ROL philosophy. Yes, I know, there are a legion of Ph.Ds out there who know more about eLearning than I can ever hope to who will vehemently disagree with me with raised fist and furrowed brow. “Our methodology is sound,” they wail.

But let me lay down the cold, hard facts: as a learner, your eLearning fast food is just not working for me.

I view such LCMS tools as I view certain software applications that can generate music for you automatically by assembling a collection of interchangeable parts and passages. Sure, the result is usually listenable, but you certainly wouldn’t dance to it or load it on your iPod.

And we all know the result of Dr. Frankenstein’s experiment with reusable parts.

Geez, the bad analogies just keep coming. I’ll stop now.

Do we want quick, easy, cheap, and efficient eLearning? Or do we want eLearning that’s good? As a learner, I choose good, thank you very much. And as an eLearning developer, I feel obligated to, um, oblige.

I realize, of course, that for the sake of argument I’m oversimplifying the situation. And I’m sure there are some truly unforgettable, earth-moving, mind-bending courses out there that were built using an RLO-focused development tool.

I personally have never seen one, but I’d love to hear from someone who has.