Last month the eLearning Guild released its latest research report on asynchronous authoring tools. In addition to basic survey questions, the research methodology included open-text feedback from users and interviews with vendors. A challenge with gathering such qualitative information: interesting, thoughtful, myriad answers, with limited space to include them in the final product. Some items that I felt warranted further mention:

  • Some respondents felt tools have sacrificed ease of use over power, with one even mentioning the good old days of Authorware and Toolkit. While many talked about ease as a factor in fitting a tool comfortably in their workflow, several said a tool was purchased with focus on ease of use because the expectation is that a subject matter expert only occasionally uses it. Which begs the questions: Why are SMEs developing eLearning? Is the purpose of ease of use to make a tool easier for anyone who happens across it, or to ease the work of a skilled practitioner? Vendors need to create a product that will sell. But does this contribute to L&D’s age-old problem of everyone thinking anyone can (or should) be a “trainer”—or an eLearning designer?
  • There are additional disconnects between decisions and use. Respondents mentioned struggling with tools they didn’t choose. Maybe they were hired into an organization that already had enterprise-wide tools in place. (Happens to all of us—we use Word, or Sharepoint, or whatever, because it’s what the organization uses.) That’s bound to happen, but sometimes it seemed that the person choosing a tool was far removed from those who would actually use it. One vendor’s sales team lead said most of his interaction with actual users is on the floor of expo areas at industry conferences: “They aren’t really involved in purchasing decisions. I hear from them when they’re struggling with a product they didn’t select and doesn’t do what they need.” And based on respondent feedback, decisions about technologies to support training efforts seem capricious: “Our whole shop is switching to another tool because it’s what the new manager knows.”
  • This disconnect extends beyond authoring tools and users, though: A number of respondents mentioned problems between authoring tools and LMS, perhaps chosen by different people and almost certainly at different times. There seems to be an erroneous belief that any LMS can run any product exported from any authoring tool, which is especially frustrating when it’s the LMS that limits what a creative designer wants to do:
    • “All the features don’t work in the LMS”
    • “The LMS can’t keep up with the product updates.“
    • “Our LMS struggles to read the zip files.”
    • “Many authoring tools are good, but the most challenging piece I have run into with my job is finding a good LMS that captures all the data that I need on student activities that I design in the authoring tool.”
    • “My LMS doesn’t support everything [tool] can do.”
    • And in what seems a big indicator of a lack of understanding that pieces need to fit together: "Our enterprise authoring tool is not working well with the new LMS.”
  • Feature problems: Nearly every vendor noted that existing customers often request features a product already has, or customers contact support after struggling to do something “the hard way” when the tool provides a more straightforward solution. Several vendors noted that the features most requested often end up being the ones less used. One said: “Most tools share 80% of features, and often the things that distinguish tools are rarely used.”
  • Accessibility remains a big concern, with one respondent saying it seems to “be several steps behind, as almost an afterthought." A number of respondents mentioned problems with closed-captioning, from being nonexistent to too hard to create or needing to be redone. Others specified problems with tools that did not produce output accessible to screen readers. The most emotionally-charged comments were on the topic of accessibility:
    • “Fairly obvious things that are a priority for users that have disabilities are left out. As with other issues that affect a small number of users, concerns are shrugged off by the developer. This attitude is a little infuriating.”
    • “It's frustrating that such an otherwise incredible tool creates courses that are only accessible to some learners, and that the vendor did not build this functionality in to the tool from the beginning, since they are the industry leader in this field.” (For more see “Accessibility in eLearning: Practitioner Perspectives”.)
  • Apart from tools proper, respondents spoke of other factors that can enhance or frustrate the experience. Many spoke of the importance of good support, particularly help resources. A standout item here was a robust user community for its capacity to help people find answers to unusual challenges likely not available in help documentation or even via the company’s own support staff.
  • Comments I coded as, “You can’t win”: Some respondents simultaneously said they wanted more features while complaining that the product was a memory hog. One who said they need more training also said they don’t have time to access existing support videos. “I have found [product] to be difficult to learn. That being said, I should have taken the time to go through the training provided first.” While you might argue that a tool should be designed so that performance support makes the need for such training unnecessary, it seems telling and a bit ironic that L&D practitioners say they aren’t willing to find time to complete training that would make their work better and their lives easier.
  • Finally, there were quite a few comments—from both users and vendors—about realistic expectations. As noted by one respondent: “It takes a lot of creativity to build good scenarios. I don’t think some understand this.” Tools can’t (yet…) build complex interactions or engaging decision paths on their own. An authoring tool is only as good as the person using it. Per a final user comment: “Design skills aren’t part of the license.”