My attempt at outlining standards and best practices throughout the e-learning development cycle.
Proposing a community-defined set of simplified e-learning development standards that can be viewed more as ‘rules of thumb’ than law.
Today Rapid Intake announced a new service named Unison. Out of curiosity, I perused the Rapid Intake site to read more about Unison. […] 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.
I looked up the QTI specs on the IMS site and couldn’t believe the boldfaced notice I saw on the page: “HTML documents may be viewed online, but may not be printed without permission” (emphasis added).
Can you believe that? IMS is in the business of creating standards they want the whole world to use. These standards should be open, easily accessible and free from licensing constraints. Why on earth do they want to put silly notices like this on their site?
Two small but important edits.
In the new HTML 5 proposal, the strong element is being modified to represent “importance rather than strong emphasis.”
Found a small bug when using the wrapper with Flash (AS2): functions that return string values (such as
SCORM.data.get()) were coming out ‘undefined’. (grr)
Explicitly typing the return value as a string seems to make Flash happy.