At 11:18 AM +0100 28/10/1999, Kevin Miller wrote:
<snip>
>
>IMHO, the best solution to delivering MC content over the web is to build a
>standalone with a single stack attached (which would display information,
>contain a splash screen, etc.) which starts downloading other stacks, or
>even individual components such as sound and video if you wanted to render
>progressively. The user goes to your site, downloads and starts running.
>Its very easy to update the content online, and gives you way more
>flexibility than a browser without even having to configure a helper
>application. Try it out with the Starter Kit: the possibilities are
>considerable, you should find it a very flexible and highly compatible
>cross-platform method of delivering interactive content.
Kevin's wrong. It's even better than this. :)
There was some talk on the list a while ago about creating a "super
browser" in Metacard, and there was some follow-up talk about
security issues. But I think the exciting possibilities are in the
other direction: making specialised "browsers" which link to only one
site. This makes security a non-issue -- you trust the site or you
don't.
For CBT, this delivery option has a lot of potential. Basically, you
can create your own customised browser. This browser can link to a
particular web server where a library of stacks, media files, etc.
can be held. The server could be on the client's site or even with
the developer's own ISP. This gives developers the option to deliver
a full multi-media training package in the form of a single small exe
file. Training content can be updated easily, and you're not stuck
with the limitations of IE, NS and JavaScript which provide, IMHO,
<rant> a user experience far less enjoyable than what was possible
with HyperCard ten years ago </rant>. For specialised content
providers, this is surely the way to go.
The value of the single exe file can't be underestimated either.
Being able to simply drag a file to your hard-disk and double click
it to get started must reduce global stress by a significant amount
(it does in this house). And it helps you get around the corporate
IT people who won't let any new fangled software so much as look at a
Windows registry file.
<tongue-in-cheeck>
On the other hand, there are those people who won't trust your new
program unlss it comes with umpteen dll's and other bits and pieces
and weighs in at a few gigabytes. I mean, you can't be taken
seriously when you deliver your new corporate training tool on a
floppy disk. So I suggest a new Binary Level Overload Access Transfer
command be added to the language to help us regain our credibility.
(I can't think of suitable syntax for this right now, but some kind
of acronym would do.) This would add a specified amount of
non-functional data to our stacks to ensure they will only fit on a
DVD disk. This should bring us up to par with the competition.
</tongue-in-cheek>
Thanks, Barry, for asking the questions. And apologies for my reply
which has added little to other people's answers. But I feel better
now.
Cheers
Dave Cragg
_____________________________________________
The LACS Centre (Business English Training Resources)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.lacscentre.co.uk
_____________________________________________
