As with all things, belonging can be a double-edged sword. When people "adopt" software tools and become zealots for the tools, it's usually harmless. But that zeal for a specific tool can also be blinding.
I've been involved with computers since my first programming class in college back in '72 (that's 1972 when computers were huge and speeds were sloooow). I've worked as a programmer, systems analyst, instructional designer, director, V.P and business owner. I've seen hundreds of tools come and go both in programming and authoring. Attachments to any tool may be hazardous to your mental well-being!
When RELATE became an eLearning vendor, after years of implementing ERP systems, it was quite a change in terms of the quality of software used to develop courses. Tools were not quite at the "professional" level we were used to, but they were adequate. In those days we used the following tools:
- Macromedia Authorware
- Aimtech IconAuthor
- Allen Communications Quest
- Asymetrix Toolbook
Wait, wait, before you start screaming that all the current tools also have the ability to write HTML or Flash or whatever, those are external languages to the authoring tools themselves. Proficiency is now needed across many more tools than was needed before...
Today we have tools that seem more watered down in many ways. They are aimed at instructional designers vs. developers, which would explain why the tools are less technical. Tools like Adobe Captivate allow extension to be written in Flash in the form of widgets, which usually need programmer intervention to make them work. Tools like Lectora can be enhanced using JavaScript, HTML or other web-based programming standards. Again, programming intervention is required.
Ultimately, a tool is a tool. Getting attached to any tool as the "end all" tool is, in today's rapidly changing economy and marketplace, somewhat suicidal. Of all the tools I mentioned above, only Toolbook is still around and it's largely unused by many. All of the attachments, praises and good capabilities of those tools meant nothing as the markets, or perceptions of the markets by the vendors, changed.
Tools are just that: tools!
If you were building a house, you would have a large set of tools. Many hammers, screwdrivers, saws, drills, planes, wrenches, etc. The more tools you have, the more you are able to deal with tasks at hand in a flexible manner. Less tools would necessitate finding many workarounds and take much more time.
eLearning development is like buying a house. You need graphics, audio, video, text, animations, and something to somehow tie all of that together. One tool can rarely do all of that though some try. For example, if your project requires some soft-skills training you could do a combination of Trivantis and Adobe Captivate. You may use PowerPoint and Captivate. You might use Articulate and TechSmith Camtasia. The combinations are endless.
Yes, you may be able to do all in one tool, but is that one tool the best one for the job? Often, a tool can do everything but in a mediocre way.
Like a building contractor, having lots of tools in your eLearning arsenal is a good thing. Development today is much buggier than it was back then and rarely does any one tool fit all the needs possible. Some tools require half of your time finding workarounds or fixing problems within the tool. Other tools do more but badly. And not all tools will be around tomorrow.
Budget permitting, get as many tools as you can for your development efforts. Mix and match them. Use the best tool for the job. And above all, don't become co-dependent or overly attached to any tool. Remember, they're just tools!
Good insight Rick and very good advise.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Geoff!
ReplyDeleteSadly, we've all seen tools we've like disappear throughout the years. The best technical writing word processor I ever used was Lotus Manuscript in the late 80s. It was great and I used it professionally a lot. One day, vanished. To this day, over 2.5 decades later, nothing is quite as easy or as good. But we make do since we have no other choices.
Rick, want to add my 2 cents as well. And strangely, I answered a discussion on Linkedin with similar thoughts about tools. Just like you I have used a lot of tools in the past and do regret the disappearance of great, functional applications as well(the whole Lotus bunch as an example). But to me the most apparent change about tools is the 'speed' of all. what has changed is first of all users nowadays do not want to spend a lot of time in learning a tool and most tools have a lot more functionalities than used by 90% of the users. But they are updated every year, which makes the learning cycle a lot more complicated. Secondly: the expectations have changed as well. And that is why you need more than one tool, seamless integration between tools becomes more and more important. But this is also a challenge and a paradox: one needs more tools, and should have time to know them deeply but they change continuously. Comment is long enough, sorry about that, will not talk about budget although it is a real pain for individuals and for ...education and non-profit sector.
ReplyDeleteYou make some great points, Lieve. And the vendors don't help the situation by constantly coming out with buggy versions, ill-conceived features, frequent releases that don't warrant upgrade costs, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhile software is getting easier, it is also losing functionality. To add the functionality we're back to complexity. Seems like the only ones losing are the end-users in many cases...
On the plus side, there are good things happening and some great products out there...
Rick,
ReplyDeleteGreat post and great comments as well. I'm impartial to any tool. For me as long as it satisfies an immediate need I will use it. I must add though that the less user friendly or more complex the tool the less likely I will be to use it.
As an instructional designer and media developer, you probably shy away from the more programming based tools. Then again you do have a degree in IT... :)
ReplyDeleteI think the vendors see a need for simpler tools and I think they're missing the real development market by hamstringing what the tools can do. They're focusing on the "easy" but not the "pwerful"...