Today Rapid Intake announced a new service named Unison.
Not having used the service, I won’t pretend to know whether it’s a worthwhile service or not. It’s certainly an intriguing idea, and with its oft-mentioned low price, it’s guaranteed to get some industry buzz.
Here’s a snippet:
Code language: HTML, XML (xml)
<tr> <td height="310" valign="top" class="h1"> <p class="h1">Collaborative eLearning Development and Review for Teams</p> <p class="h1"> </p> <p class="mainText">Built on the Rapid Intake eLearning Development Platform, Unison is a web-based solution [ ... ]</p> <p class="mainText"> </p> <p class="mainText">Now all your SMEs, designers, and reviewers can work together on e-learning courseware [ ... ]</p> <p class="mainText"> </p> <p class="mainText">All you need to do is <a href="#">logon and get started.</a> </p> <p class="mainText"> </p>
This code clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of long-established web standards and best practices.
I certainly don’t mean to beat up on whoever designed their site, but as a company whose business is publishing web-based documents, this website gives me zero confidence in the quality of their product.
Please understand that I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I wouldn’t rag on an individual person’s site or home-brewed course system (I know my site isn’t perfect, either!). It’s just that this site is a perfect example of how our industry appears to pay little heed to web standards and best practices. Rapid Intake — a company clearly on the rise in our niche market — is in a perfect position to be a role model for ‘doing it right.’
Standards make development work easier, and greatly reduce compatibility issues. I just don’t understand why companies like Rapid Intake don’t see that.