Hi Aral, On Aug 19, 2005, at 6:12 AM, Aral Balkan wrote:
You can't build a Flash LMS (ie., modules can't talk to a SWF using JavaScript.) Thus you are limited to the page model and having the controller be in HTML (or other technology that supports JavaScript.) The opportunity to manage the learning experience using two of the greatest advantages of Flash (maintaining state, lack of refreshes) are lost.
You're absolutely correct, though I would question what kind of modules couldn't talk to a SWF using JavaScript. osFlash has already pointed to the ExternalInterface, and there's the Flash/JavaScript Integration Kit that's been put out already. It's still not as easy as, say, HTML. But we're talking Flash here, but clearly if SCOs can be built on an AJAX framework (maintaining state, lack of refreshes), and I think there is an LMS that uses an AJAX framework for delivery of content into an iframe, then while the door isn't open for Flash to be this all-encompassing player, it doesn't mean it won't ever be.
Besides, Flash lacks the fundamental internal browser that Director can so easily consume. And more importantly, a Flash LMS would need to be able to support plug-ins internal to the Flash framework.
In other words, I've never tried to run a Java Applet inside of the Flash player. I'd be pretty surprised if that day ever came.
This is SCORM's fundamental flaw. It should have been an XML protocol *not* a scripting language. What is being exchanged is data -- who cares *how* that data exchange occurs as long as the various parts know how to deal with a well-defined schema.
Not speaking for ADL, CTC or anyone else... an XML protocol would be pretty sweet. That would open the doors for all manner of implementations. Though I would posit that certifying all these different implementations could be a logistical nightmare.
To put things into perspective somewhat, we work in an industry in which there's a ~70% failure rate for projects. (Thus, the overwhelming majority of software that gets produced does not meet end-user needs and is rejected.) Unfortunately, with the government support that SCORM has, it will continue to live on, flawed as it is, without change because that is how large bureaucracies (and their products) operate (ie., inefficiently.) If you work on government e-learning projects, then you have no other choice but to bite the bullet and use SCORM. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to adhere to such a flawed specification.
I really *can't* jump into a debate on this, but if you'll allow me, let me drop this on you:
1) It's not just the US government that's adopting it. Canada, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy are just off the top of my head whose governments (not just their Defense ministries) are adopting or have adopted SCORM.
2) The DoD picked up the tab, but Industry, Academia, Military and Government are represented in the creation of SCORM, and it's all based off of *existing* standards that were authored by AICC, IEEE and IMS. SCORM explains how those standards co-exist in the same environment.
3) SCORM was implemented to solve certain problems for a certain audience. Other audiences have found that it solves some, or a lot, or problems for them, too. It's not open source, but it's headed that way. And as far as government goes, it's probably on the most open end of government-endorsed specification spectrum. There's a lot of outside involvement in SCORM -- including that of Macromedia.
4) I wholeheartedly disagree with your 70% failure rate. I'd posit it's much *worse* than that, and it has nothing to do with SCORM or any other standards, and everything to do with the persons who list something as a requirement when they have little or no idea what they're getting themselves into, as well as the persons who agree to those requirements to perform that work and haven't done a proper risk analysis. That's certainly the case with SCORM, as well as EVERY technical requirement/constraint.
I'm not going to sell you on SCORM, because that's not my job (or interest). But I'll add my perspective (such as I can) and add some clarity based on experience.
You can take it or leave it, but I offer it freely.
All this just reminds me why I love the open source world with its lack of bureaucracy, dynamic nature, steely pragmatism and boundless energy! :)
I can certainly agree with that. -a- _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
