Philip Hutchinson at pipwerks asks and takes a stab at answering the question, “Should We Use eLearning Authoring Tools?”  Here’s the core of his opinion:
Most eLearning tools do not promote the creation of effective courses, do not…

I understand what you’re saying (and largely agree), but I think you may be missing some of my points. Let me clarify:

Effective courses
Most elearning development tools focus on allowing non-technical people create “Mickey Mouse” courses quickly. They don’t help the user understand instructional design processes and best practices. That doesn’t mean that a motivated instructional designer can’t adapt the tool to their needs. Thus, for a seasoned instructional designer or training professional, it’s true that “It’s not the tools you use, but how you use them,” but for entry-level trainers who don’t know any better, they’ll wind up using templates that may or may not be the best solution for their needs.

And I would never equate “flashy” with ‘good.’ I would hope anyone who reads my site would understand that.

Web standards
Most elearning tools output poorly written HTML markup and JavaScript. If the development tool is a WYSIWYG editor, the user can’t be expected to know how to write the code, and thus the burden of using web best practices falls squarely on the development tool. The tool should use proper semantics in the HTML markup and clean (preferably unobtrusive) JavaScript. This means no tables for layout, no inline JavaScript (such as body onload=”myFunction()”), no browser-specific code, etc.

In my experience, most elearning tools appear to output bloated 1998-style HTML and JavaScript, which demonstrates an utter lack of understanding about how the web has evolved over the last 10 years. I would love for someone to point me to some elearning tools that use modern best practices. I really would. I may even buy it.

Accessibility
Accessibility refers to the ability of people who use alternative web browsing tools to be able to access the course content. This means blind people who use braile, low-vision people who need to enlarge the screen (either by full zoom or just enlarging the text), deaf people who use closed captioning, and people who use alternative control devices due to lack of arm mobility (paralyzed people, people with conditions such as MS, people with carpal tunnel, etc.)… not everyone can use a mouse.

In my experience, elearning development tools have paid practically zero attention to accessibility. Using modern markup and JavaScript best practices would go a long way in making a course system accessible.

You shouldn’t need to “know your audience” to make the course accessible. A well-designed system is accessible regardless of audience, and elearning development tools should help course designers make this a no-brainer, with little or no extra effort required. The person using the elearning development tool can’t be expected to be a usability or accessibility expert.

And yes, I agree with you that canned “off the shelf” courses generally suck. That’s why I write about adopting best practices… I’m trying to do my (little) part to help spread the word and make some change.

As to your comment:

“Most eLearning tools do not promote the creation of effective courses,”

Effective in what sense? An effective course means that the learner improved performance and behavior was modified. ROI is something we watch in the training world and being “flashy” does not equal an effective course and a good ROI. AND may even detract from it. Effective in being portable…or being marketable? It’s hard to use an off the shelf product to make a course you can sell, but if you want to build a product to teach. They can work very well.

“do not promote web standards,”

Tools do not promote anything, standards or otherwise, people do. Just like SAE vs Metric, you pick the one that fits. The tools don’t set the standard. Promoting “WEB standards” is also not the goal of elearning nor even the goal of the ADL.

“and do not promote accessibility;”

Accessibility for whom…? Web Designers? Instructional designers? Learners? Vendors who wish to sell a product? Back to ADL again - the desire is to deliver the highest-quality learning and performance that can be tailored to individual needs and delivered cost-effectively…. Darn it, Individualized AND Cost Effective. Accessalbilty to a org with 300 employees means something different than to one with 15,000. Just because its all in xml doesn’t mean much. AS for accessiblity for learners with special needs, ID’s have always have to work this into any course, elearning or classroom, I was glad to hear 508 made it offical. A designer that doesn’t know his target audience may have special needs is a poor designer, and if the course is meant to reach as many people as possible, then the course design is not focused enough(individualized) to be effective. It’s just another canned course. The tool has nothing to do with it

“they merely make cookie-cutter course development easier for technically inexperienced course developers.”

Have you seen some of the stuff vendors are putting out? Canned off the shelf junk that they rent to you like block buster video rents movies, and don’t get me started on “branding and build your own with our tools” sites. Welcome to the “WalMart” of training. I would welcome some technical inexperience and a little imagination over these lack lust courses.

Where am I going with this?

It’s not the tools you use, but how you use them.

I’m partially, in a wierd way, kind of happy that my department’s seminar budget has been reduced for 2008, so I don’t have to go to yet another “elearning developers conference” where everyone I talk to it seems does nothing more than powerpoint. I am a one-person elearning shop, though admittedly 75% of my day-to-day tasks are related to managing a classroom training function. About 4 years ago I was asked to come up with an elearning program (whatever that meant, no one knew) for my company. I was thrilled. I immediately started learning everything I could about html, flash, etc. As you know, during this time the number of powerpoint-to-flash conversion tools has skyrocketed. I was shocked, and still am, that so many in our field took to these tools.