Screen Design Question

;) We haven't removed the possibility of next / back, but we frown upon the prescription. Here's my preference:

* Tell me where I'm going (implying where I'll be when I get finished with that activity)

* Lead me through or let me run the activity. When I'm through the activity, if I want to go BACK through the activity, let me start again. Sometimes it's right to give the student fluid control of the sequence using a playbar or even a next / prev button (not the default).

* Return me to the overview, show me what I've done and let me select another activity section.

Take a look at these examples. These have specific activity applications. Not one of them uses conveyer belt controls:

http://www.jellyvision.com/examples.php

One size doesn't fit all. We reallize that a linear presentation with user conveyer controls are appropriate. We just don't think making that the default provides an experience worth having. If I want a user to page through content, I'll package it up in a PDF and give them reader control. Abstracting the flip content from the activity and reducing the depth of the package is part of the philosophy.

Look at most typical displays 'Screen 1 of 15', '1 of 35', etc.. What kind of experience are we setting the learner up for?

Take this structure as an alternative that assumes you have the power to influence the SME not to throw in everything including the kitchen sink:

1. Title -> three clear options: Test Out | Jump In | Download for offline viewing

2. Test Out presents a small handful of questions to figure out what they already know. We require 100% mastery to test out of a section.

3. Jump In displays the Index. We also limit the number of sections within a lesson (SCO = Lesson Level, could have multiple lessons in a course but never more than one lesson in a SCO). This page displays 4 to 6 sections with clear descriptions of the concepts, values, or skills supported by the section activities.

3a. Learner selects a section. The section starts with an activity of some kind. Activities are modular, they could stand on their own and support a facet of or entire concept. The navigation in the activity depends on the activity. If you're trying to articulate the operating concept of a helicopter pilot's console, then you might just have a cue and annotation feedback. When the learner finishes the activity there's an organic cue to (1) Continue on to ... (2) Try that again.

Getting back to limiting depth, we project that 3 to 5 activities for a concept or section is ample. Limiting the depth of 'screens' also enables us to show those 3 to 5 activities with status icons (not started, started, complete) within the section.

An activity can be a variety of things, but it's still an activity. Not a listening activity, not a bullet reading activity, not a conveyer belt activity. We might include peripheral resources, read aheads, tools, job aids, etc. that provide the same service as a long chain of screens in a more natural format for learner intake and support on the real-world side.

What we do is part of something larger. We are building components for the ecosystem. Folks are uncomfortable with stuff that's not 'the way we've always done things'. Change is the hardest thing we've had to do. Change in mindset that includes criticizing everything we've done before and challenging our new ideas with the same vigor and conviction that we apply to pruning SME provided input. And this isn't easy, but damn it's a lot more fun than standard faire design / dev that results in subpar or mediocre outputs.