Epigeum Insights Subscribe to Epigeum Insights

Like many of us, I was bowled over by Second Life at the peak of the hype three to four years ago. The concept of an alternative world seemed to offer endless opportunities for rethinking many of the learning activities performed online. At the time, it seemed every university we spoke to was enthusiastically setting up a Second Life area and pouring energy into the project with a glint in the eye. It seemed that all this effort would be self-fulfilling. How could Second Life fail to make an impact in Higher Education with so many bright, energetic and funded teams championing the cause?

However, in 2011 all has gone quiet. A Google search for news on Linden Lab results in just four pages of entries and none from the major media outlets. Occasionally we hear that a university has closed their Second Life island. Last year we heard that Lindon Lab was laying off 30% of its staff. And now, thinking back over the past four years, I can't think of a single project that has made a significant impact on mainstream teaching. So why has Second Life failed to live up to our expectations?

I can think of at least two reasons. First, the product didn't live up to the concept. The idea of an alternative 3D universe sparkled in our imaginations but this clashed abruptly with the reality of ponderous movement and awkward 'zombie hands' text chat. I believe that the majority bought into the concept rather than the reality and this is why many of us logged in just once or twice rather than becoming lifers. The fact that most other visitors we met were flying in the sky and had rabbit heads didn't help either!

For those of us interested in online learning, the more significant reason has to be that Second Life doesn't add value to many online learning activities. In fact, it often makes them worse. Why deliver a presentation on a small video window in a Second Life world when GoToMeeting is far more effective? Why communicate via zombie hands text chat when Skype is so much easier? Why force learners to spend minutes awkwardly moving through a 3D world when a regular web interface would take them to their destination in a couple of clicks?

The effective uses of Second Life are those that take advantage of its unique characteristic, a 3D environment navigated via an avatar. This occurs when it is the process of navigating an avatar through the 3D environment that leads directly to students acquiring the learning objective of an exercise. For example, Maria Toro-Troconis' Second Life project at the Imperial College Medical School enables trainee doctors to walk around virtual wards to gain an understanding of the dynamics involved. It is also straightforward to imagine how Second Life can be used on courses in architecture, design and engineering.

However, for the majority of subjects, the 3D avatar environment isn't advantageous. There is generally no advantage to observing presentational activities relating to maths, computing, business studies, law, psychology and so on through the eyes of an avatar in a 3D environment. And, as mentioned before, communicative activities in such subjects are often hindered by such an environment. The fact that universities often focus on the theoretical also exacerbates the issue. So, Second Life has become relevant in niche areas but we were all expecting much more and this is the reason for the disappointment.

At Epigeum, we are yet to build course activities in 3D and one reason for this is our observations of others struggling with Second Life. I imagine we are not alone in this and perhaps Second Life has stunted the growth in 3D in the mainstream.

However, we have been guilty of conflating two issues: a Second Life-type navigable 3D world and the broader idea of 3D rendering. To illustrate the latter, Harry Brenton at Imperial College has shown that rendering organs of the body in 3D increases students' understanding of anatomy. The organs are not navigated via an avatar, just presented to students!

The Epigeum development team is now pushing for the inclusion of 3D in our courses, having seen tools such as PaperVision. For us, it is once more time to explore the use of 3D with an open mind.

Those of us working in and around higher education are used to hearing references to the dreaded phrase 'digital divide'. The fear that the web generation of whiz-kid students will expect courses to be delivered using technologies that older university staff cannot comprehend.

I propose that a further digital divide exists between these students and the current crop of VLE (LMS) systems. These systems appear frozen in time while the mainstream web continues to race forward.

(Web 1.0: Click image to view Netscape web archive from 1996)

Take social media, for example. Students expect to comment on and rate course content in the VLE. They expect smooth links from the VLE to the other tools they use, such as Facebook and Twitter. They expect to be able to mash up and aggregate content in order to tailor their learning experience and so on. VLEs don't let students do these things easily.

We've also seen synchronous communication tools progress in leaps and bounds over the past few years. I admit that  VLE developers have not totally ignored this development; however, those that have incorporated synchronous tools have not done a great job. It is quite a jolt to experience a VLE chat room if you are used to contemporary synchronous tools such as Skype, GoToMeeting and Facebook. Thinking about it, VLEs don't do a great job with asynchronous tools such as Wikis either.  Compatibility with existing best-in-class tools is probably the way forward here now many of them offer APIs and other connection options.

Other trends in the sector also seem to have largely passed VLEs by. For example, personalised learning, OER (Open Educational Resources) and mobile learning. Yes, Blackboard has made a good start with their mobile app, but such efforts are exceptions to the rule.

I could go on but I'll limit myself to one last gripe. Why do VLE interfaces seem to be stuck in the land of a thousand clicks when the rest of the web is progressing to desktop-like interfaces?

So, VLEs could be better. Why do we care at Epigeum? Well, although we spent thousands of hours crafting our own beautiful hosted VLE system, virtually all universities opt to deliver our courses through their own VLE. Despite grumbling about them from time to time, universities seem pretty attached to their VLEs.

Therefore, most students access Epigeum courses through their university's VLE and these systems just aren't presenting our courses in the best light. Given the amount of work we put into them, our courses deserve better. So come on VLE developers, keep up. It can't be that hard. Can it?

After our recent blog postings "The ten technical principles of building effective courseware" and "The ten principles of effective courseware design", we thought we would continue in a similar vein with a posting on accessibility.

From the very start, we at Epigeum have taken accessibility seriously. We are keenly aware that university customers often have legal obligations under acts such as the DDA in the UK and Section 508 and make all reasonable efforts to ensure our courses comply with this legislation. However, most of all, we want all users to be able to benefit from our courses.

In writing this post we have tried to distil all our accessibility procedures into the ten key questions that we ask ourselves before releasing a course. Note that these principles aim to improve accessibility for all users and not just those protected under the various acts of legislation.

Wilma Alexander from the University of Edinburgh regularly advises us on accessibility issues and we are grateful, once again, to Wilma for helping us compile this list. So, here we go...

Q1.Does the content on a screen follow a logical order?

The purpose for this is to ensure the content makes sense when read by screen reader software. Our courses are built in HTML and one of the simple ways we check the content order is to remove the CSS so the screen can be seen without any design elements applied. Once the CSS is removed, do the remaining items of content read one after the other and appear in a logical order?

Related to ordering is the need to have a navigation menu clearly visible and available to be used. An up-to-date site map is also recommended.

Q2.Is the content navigable using only keyboard controls?

To ensure your content can be accessed by as many users as possible, users should be able to control the content using just a keyboard, meaning if the mouse was taken away, the user would still have full control.

Q3.Is there sufficient contrast between the text on a screen and the background behind it?

To help text be legible to as many users as possible, the W3C recommends a contrast ratio of at least 7:1 between any text and the background behind the text. There are a number of tools available to test contrast. We use the Colour Contrast Analyser for Mac OSX developed by Cedric Trevisan.

Q4.Do users have sufficient control over the content?

Interactive objects and video, as well as on screen text, should be under user control, so that the user can change the size and colour contrast by applying their own preferences or using control keys. Some of your users will expect to be able to zoom into any area of the screen and increase the size of text to increase readability.

Q5.Are transcripts or captions available for all audio and video elements?

All video and audio content should include a text alternative, including captions for on-screen events. Let the nature of the content determine whether to provide subtitles, transcripts or summary text. This is another way to provide alternative content for users who are unable to hear videos or audio files. Note that you should pay particularly close attention to the provision of captions if your institution strictly applies Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act.

Q6.Are all interactive items on a screen preceded by clear instructions?

Your pages should be written so that instructional text precedes any interactive objects so that users know how to use them. Also remember to include information to describe what settings and media players are needed to view your content.

Q7.Is help available on the screen?

Provide access to a help page at all times, so that users can get information on technical issues they may face when trying to use your site.

Q8.Are there any unnecessary links on the screen?

Using our courses as an example, they will never link to content on another page, the advantage of this being that when users are presented with a topic, it will be fully explained on the page they are currently on. Websites often use links to jump around to different pages, but try to get your information across in small chunks if possible, and avoid sending users around a site for the sake of having links. If a link will take a user to another site, or open a new browser window, warn them of this.

Q9.Could any interactions on the screen be changed so that they are more intuitive?

As well as providing instructional text to explain how to use interactive objects, you can also design them in such a way that they are easy to use and intuitive. The advantage of this is that users are not presented with something confusing, or which requires explanation.

Q10.Has alternative content been provided for all images, videos and interactive objects?

A text description given for all images, videos and interactive objects will go a long way to making your site accessible. This final point is especially important as, however hard you try, it is sometimes impossible to ensure that all items of multimedia or iterative content is equally accessible to all users. Unfortunately, although the answers to questions 1-9 above may identify that there is more that you can do, providing alternative content may be the only solution. At Epigeum we now provide printable, text-based pages for all screens on our courses.

Those are our ten questions. We'd be interested to know how this compares with your own efforts so please post a comment below and let us know.

Final note

We also find the following resources useful:

TechDis
http://www.techdis.ac.uk
From the UK and one of the definitive sources of information for accessible educational content.

The W3C WCAG Guidelines
http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php
Accessibility guidelines from the W3C.

PAS 78
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/pas78_word.doc
A guide to creating websites compliant with the UK DDA published by the British Standards Institution in collaboration with the Disability Rights Commission.

WebbIE
http://www.webbie.org.uk/
A free browser for people with little or no sight. Useful to check how accessible your content is.

W3C validator
http://validator.w3.org/
A free valid HTML checker to highlight problem areas.

Hello everyone,

Firstly to introduce myself on my first posting to the blog, my name’s James Connor and I head the technical team at Epigeum.

Following on from David's last post on effective courseware design, I'd like to add a post on the technical principles of building effective courseware. It's tough to keep this at ten, but I have managed to do so and here is my list. Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions.

1.Adhere to standards

Adhering closely to standards such as IMS Content Packaging gives you flexibility on how to distribute your courses and allows you to tap into the ecosystem of developer tools, skilled staff and delivery systems that surround a standard. These advantages are generally beneficial but critical to a content publisher such as Epigeum.

2.Ensure compliance with accessibility legislation

We take accessibility seriously and not just to meet accessibility legislation. We believe that the more accessible our courses are, the easier they are to use. We want all users to be able to access our courses and also find that features such as video transcripts, the ability to increase text size, and printable versions of screens are generally useful, whatever the requirements of a particular user. We'll publish a further Epigeum Insights soon giving an overview of the accessibility measures taken when building our courses.

3.Reuse code templates where possible

Reusing code templates enables you to build materials more quickly and to a higher quality. The speed increase is obvious but why the increase in quality? We find our code templates don't stand still but are continually refined, meaning that far more thought and work is put into reusable templates than one-time builds. We also find that usability is increased as the user becomes accustomed to how our interactive objects work.

4.Ensure you have a robust commenting procedure in place

Anyone familiar with computer coding will be familiar with the feeling of frustration when trying to edit code that has been poorly commented. Commenting code is a key skill required of all programmers, but developers tend to be more diligent in their comments when coding software rather than e-learning content. However, like software, if you build good-quality content then there will be a need to revise and update this content on a regular basis. Robust commenting procedures are also required if your developers work in teams as we do at Epigeum.

5.Don't use the latest specifications but do continually innovate

A danger of rushing to cutting-edge specifications is that most people will not be able to access your materials and those that can are likely to have a frustrating user experience. However, this doesn’t mean that innovation isn’t crucial. If you stand still in our field, then your courses will look dated very quickly. We keep an eye on all new technologies emerging in the industry, particularly the ones that we feel will make for an improved user experience. Our approach is to be continually innovative with our products but ensure that they remain usable.

6.Pay attention to the detail... repeatedly

Check, check, and check again! Technical delivery requires as much attention to detail as editorial and content. How many times should you check? Well, it probably depends on how many people are involved, in that the more people do the checking, the less iterations are required. At Epigeum we supplement formal proofreading and user testing with a system that asks all staff to perform QA at each level, from editorial down to the programming of each individual object built by our developers.

7.Keep it simple

With the advent of technologies such as HTML5, Ajax and sophisticated CSS, the technical build of webpages is becoming increasingly intricate; however, when it comes to e-learning material, it pays to keep it simple. Delivery platforms such as VLEs are continually updated and complicated structures nearly always break when viewed across different VLEs! Therefore, our advice is to keep things simple, building solid code using HTML, JavaScript and ActionScript, that we know will work across all browsers.

8.Don't build until you have completed storyboards and brief from editorial team

The storyboard is the final paper version of the course content, ready to be built into an interactive format. There is always the temptation to make a start on a build before the specification is 100% complete, but in our experience this nearly always results in repetition and errors that actually result in a build finishing later than planned rather than earlier.

9.Check your courseware within its delivery framework

Like most e-learning content these days, Epigeum courses are delivered to users through a VLE/LMS. It seems obvious, but it is dangerous to assume that courseware will work as planned within the VLE/LMS just because it works fine outside it. VLEs/LMSs are strange and complicated systems that tend to perform all kinds of processing on your code before delivering to users. It is essential to test courseware within its delivery platform. At Epigeum our approach is to ensure that our courses work in the most commonly-used, mainstream systems, and then offer a personal support service to any universities using a different system if they are having difficulty installing.

10.Ensure browser compatibility

This is the age-old question of browser compatibility. The browser market is so fragmented now that it is virtually impossible to ensure courseware is compatible with every existing version of every browser. So what to do? Our strategy has to be to test the most widely-used browsers, checking web browser stats to find which are the most commonly used ones and aiming to hit 95% of systems in use. Our untested belief is that most of the users of the remaining 5% also tend to have access to compatible browsers on their PC. Once we have established the most commonly used browsers, we test every element of our courses with these browsers to ensure compatibility.