<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Choosing a specific technology for your e-learning courseware</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pipwerks.com/journal/2008/08/11/choosing-a-specific-technology-for-your-e-learning-courseware/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pipwerks.com/journal/2008/08/11/choosing-a-specific-technology-for-your-e-learning-courseware/</link>
	<description>Philip Hutchison's technology journal, dedicated to exploring web technologies for website and e-learning development.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: matt perkins</title>
		<link>http://pipwerks.com/journal/2008/08/11/choosing-a-specific-technology-for-your-e-learning-courseware/#comment-684</link>
		<dc:creator>matt perkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:27:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipwerks.com/journal/?p=120#comment-684</guid>
		<description>good answers!

as a "from scratch developer" aicc is harder to develop for - SCORM is much easier, thanks in large part to people like you.

if accessibility issues were not a concern, i'd use Flash for nearly everything. it provides a "prettier" experience to the jaded, video game playing gen-y learner. 
and as a tool developer it's easier to create a firm template to for others to develop with. off shore vendors can't muck with the code if all they are doing is editing the XML files; but if you give them code, they try to customize it and cause days of delay. i don't know if many people have had to deal with that issue. 
also, it's easier to block users from cheating by viewing the code and copy/pasting screen text.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good answers!</p>
<p>as a &#8220;from scratch developer&#8221; aicc is harder to develop for - SCORM is much easier, thanks in large part to people like you.</p>
<p>if accessibility issues were not a concern, i&#8217;d use Flash for nearly everything. it provides a &#8220;prettier&#8221; experience to the jaded, video game playing gen-y learner.<br />
and as a tool developer it&#8217;s easier to create a firm template to for others to develop with. off shore vendors can&#8217;t muck with the code if all they are doing is editing the XML files; but if you give them code, they try to customize it and cause days of delay. i don&#8217;t know if many people have had to deal with that issue.<br />
also, it&#8217;s easier to block users from cheating by viewing the code and copy/pasting screen text.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Alcock</title>
		<link>http://pipwerks.com/journal/2008/08/11/choosing-a-specific-technology-for-your-e-learning-courseware/#comment-683</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Alcock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:16:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipwerks.com/journal/?p=120#comment-683</guid>
		<description>I hope you don't mind a vendor response but at Atlantic Link we have a rapid e-learning authoring product (Content Point) that will allow you to build the content you need quickly and easily. Our system outputs in Flash but makes the Flash Section 508 compliant automatically. You can find more information on our website.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hope you don&#8217;t mind a vendor response but at Atlantic Link we have a rapid e-learning authoring product (Content Point) that will allow you to build the content you need quickly and easily. Our system outputs in Flash but makes the Flash Section 508 compliant automatically. You can find more information on our website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
