Matt Wilcox posted an interesting argument about the CSS3 standard; I think the central points of the argument can be applied to SCORM and where we’re potentially headed with SCORM 2.0.
Eventually someone in the e-learning field is going to get slapped with a lawsuit just like Target did. If that’s what it takes to wake people up, I’m hoping it’s sooner rather than later!
SCO stands for shareable content object. If a course is not built to be shareable, it isn’t really a SCO, even if it uses SCORM for packaging. Spinning SCORM’s communication element off into its own standard — without the name SCORM — would free SCORM to truly be a Shareable Content Object Reference Model, and would free non-aggregators from having to deal with the complexities of SCORM.
A common thread in many of the posts I’ve been reading is that standards do not lead to innovation, but rather that innovation leads to standardization.
Thoughts and an addendum for my SCORM 2.0 white paper submission
This question came in via email. I figured I would post it (keeping the author anonymous) because these are very common questions, and maybe this post can help other people out. I also want to give others the opportunity to throw in their 2 cents! 🙂
As I’ve mentioned before, it really gets in my craw that the IMS positions itself as a big player in creating and maintaining e-learning standards, yet keeps their doors closed to the public. How can it be a standard if people can’t get to it? Sheesh.
Most e-learning developers don’t care about SCORM and only (begrudingly) learn enough to get the job done. I don’t blame them. This brings up the never-ending question when it comes to using SCORM in courseware: What are you really trying to do with SCORM?
The transition is almost complete: I have ditched my Windows-based PC for a MacBook Pro.
Quote: There’s something fundamentally contradictory about open standards being developed behind closed doors.