As a final reflection on this semester, I am amazed at what I have learned. It was certainly a long and challenging semester. The amount of work necessary to be accomplished for a three credit class exceeded what I was anticipating, but in the end it may have been for the best. I certainly approach my message design with a new light and new vision that was probably realistically there under the surface all along, but I wasn't able to formulate what made it good or bad.
Creating effective message design is not easy, and I still struggle mightily with it daily. It seems like it should be a breeze to think creatively, but deadlines, outside distractions, dry material and creative lapses make it tougher than it seems. However, with practice and review, I think I will find this semester to have been one of the most influential of my sessions at UCD.
Good (and bad) message design is all around. In watching the evening news, I gained a new perspective when examining the differences between the local and national news presentation styles. Granted the budget levels make the graphics easier to accommodate, but local news seems to carry much more of a "read the bullets" style of message, where as the national news uses the backgrounds and graphics as an enhancement tool. Music videos (at least good ones) can tell two stories at the same time. The music plays and gives a message, and the story plays out on the screen. Sometimes it matches, some times it doesn't. Regardless, the visual elements that have been so key to all of the readings and projects make for the most effective design. And it is out there, you just have to open your eyes to look and realize. We often shut our brains down from messages due to the bombardment of overstimulating messages we see each day, but a really effective storyteller or visual message stands out. And not to say that every message we make should have to reach that point, but we should all set it as a goal if we want our messages to sink in.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Free versus Pay
Over the process of the semester, we have had the opportunity to examine many collaborative communication options, most of which were free. Many were great and provided new and awesome ideas. Many had in my opinion questionable value, but may serve a purpose for the right time and place.
Many free options came with their series of glitches and qwerps, that reinforced the idea of "you get what you pay for." In my new job, I have found that many pay options provide similar tools, and often don't carry the same glitches.
However, depending upon the project, there is also value in simplicity. I explored a 30 day trial for a concept mapping tool, but found the free mapping options to be easier to use for my purposes. The pay option carried a lot of interesting options, bells, whistles and extra features, but when push came to shove they served to complicate what was a simple task. It would have taken me hours to sort through how to add images, linking options, etc. The free option I figured out in about three minutes flat.
If I was using the tool more consistently or in a more professional setting, the extra options may have served me well. However, for a quick and dirty, the free choice was the better option.
Many free options came with their series of glitches and qwerps, that reinforced the idea of "you get what you pay for." In my new job, I have found that many pay options provide similar tools, and often don't carry the same glitches.
However, depending upon the project, there is also value in simplicity. I explored a 30 day trial for a concept mapping tool, but found the free mapping options to be easier to use for my purposes. The pay option carried a lot of interesting options, bells, whistles and extra features, but when push came to shove they served to complicate what was a simple task. It would have taken me hours to sort through how to add images, linking options, etc. The free option I figured out in about three minutes flat.
If I was using the tool more consistently or in a more professional setting, the extra options may have served me well. However, for a quick and dirty, the free choice was the better option.
Collaborate or not to collaborate
Web 2.0 brings a lot of wonderful ideas and developments to the internet at large. Collaborative efforts can bring new ideas, new technologies, and new viewpoints into what could many times be a strict one sided interpretation. However, one also has to wonder if the depth of content of the message can be lost with too many "cooks stirring the stew." As nearly every news story now provides users the ability to comment, I have noticed numerous discussions that often make my head hurt from the triviality or simple stupidity of user comments. I have also found some very intelligent conversation pieces, but they are often overshadowed by those of lesser intelligence.
I am not commenting or believing that everyone's points do not have value, but allowing anyone and everyone to comment can create an overwhelming sense of hubris and self importance that reduces the value of the discussion. If one has to read through pages of Broncoz Rul to reach a valid discussion on NFL players and handgun use, the intelligent thoughts are often overlooked and lost to time.
I am not commenting or believing that everyone's points do not have value, but allowing anyone and everyone to comment can create an overwhelming sense of hubris and self importance that reduces the value of the discussion. If one has to read through pages of Broncoz Rul to reach a valid discussion on NFL players and handgun use, the intelligent thoughts are often overlooked and lost to time.
Changing stlyes of message design in eLearning
So this blog entry has been rewritten at least 4 times now. I know that defeats the purpose of a blog, but I wanted to try to have it make a sensible point.
Message design applied to eLearning, especially WBT or CBT certainly has its differences from traditional methods of training and instruction. I've had many conversations recently about our practices of message design in our training output. One colleague of mine in particular has shown resistance to many of the ideas discussed in team discussions from what we have learned this semester. He feels that reducing the message output on the screen reduces the value of the training, and learners aren't really getting the whole picture of the topic. While I see value in his points, as we do have a certain amount of detail to get across, I think there is a lot of misplaced resistance that will result in many challenges in the future.
Numerous readings we have explored this semester have all talked about no more than 200 words or less on a screen at any time. In many ways, I would argue for even less. When I personally approach a training module on my own time (as our users are required to) I am very resistant to sitting and reading several paragraphs worth of material. I (and many others like me) am not comfortable reading that much text on a screen. Furthermore, it also brings into question the value of using the medium to present lengthy text (harkening back to Tufte's ideas).
On the flip side however, I am cautious from totally "drinking the kool-aid" of Duarte's ideas. Much of what she and Reynolds present deals with a traditional stand up presentation. Given that our eLearning is taken in an asynchronous manner with bandwitdth, content and time issues that prevent us from extending into too much detail, I am not sure how to bring it all together.
At the least, it is important to keep this information in the forefront when you design instruction, even if you cannot follow them all the time. As our audience and the technology changes, the two will certainly converge to make greater use of the methodologies in a happy medium to make for effective message design and training.
Message design applied to eLearning, especially WBT or CBT certainly has its differences from traditional methods of training and instruction. I've had many conversations recently about our practices of message design in our training output. One colleague of mine in particular has shown resistance to many of the ideas discussed in team discussions from what we have learned this semester. He feels that reducing the message output on the screen reduces the value of the training, and learners aren't really getting the whole picture of the topic. While I see value in his points, as we do have a certain amount of detail to get across, I think there is a lot of misplaced resistance that will result in many challenges in the future.
Numerous readings we have explored this semester have all talked about no more than 200 words or less on a screen at any time. In many ways, I would argue for even less. When I personally approach a training module on my own time (as our users are required to) I am very resistant to sitting and reading several paragraphs worth of material. I (and many others like me) am not comfortable reading that much text on a screen. Furthermore, it also brings into question the value of using the medium to present lengthy text (harkening back to Tufte's ideas).
On the flip side however, I am cautious from totally "drinking the kool-aid" of Duarte's ideas. Much of what she and Reynolds present deals with a traditional stand up presentation. Given that our eLearning is taken in an asynchronous manner with bandwitdth, content and time issues that prevent us from extending into too much detail, I am not sure how to bring it all together.
At the least, it is important to keep this information in the forefront when you design instruction, even if you cannot follow them all the time. As our audience and the technology changes, the two will certainly converge to make greater use of the methodologies in a happy medium to make for effective message design and training.
Gliffy and other mapping tools
I took some time to explore Gliffy, an online mapping and more tool. I think there are some really neat features and possibilities that come with the product. It offers mapping in the forms of a number of features. You can diagram everything from a floor plan to assembling a IT network plan. I particularly could probably have benefitted from this tool when designing my EdWeb project. The technical drawing feature could be useful in some of my work with the Health and Safety team to outline how operations work. The floor planning feature was an interesting feature, but not one that I could necessarily use in my current position. but could be helpful at home to help with redesigning our home floorplans.
The collaborative features of this program can also help in the development of your project as well. The free option provides many of the features that can make it successful. Upgrading to the premium version could have it's benefits, but at $5 a month can also quickly add up. I would say this program would be worth considering for future projects, but would likely start with the free option
In the process of developing my Package with a Purpose project, I examined a few different options like Mind42.com and other Web 2.0 mind mapping tools. While I found these to be useful for their cross-computer options, I found the tools to be less than perfect. The controls were often touchy and in the end I found myself resorting back to Duarte's comments about simplicity and using sticky notes. As cool and interactive as many of these programs are, the hands on manipulatives often make the idea development more concrete and easier to handle. In my opinion anyway. :)
The collaborative features of this program can also help in the development of your project as well. The free option provides many of the features that can make it successful. Upgrading to the premium version could have it's benefits, but at $5 a month can also quickly add up. I would say this program would be worth considering for future projects, but would likely start with the free option
In the process of developing my Package with a Purpose project, I examined a few different options like Mind42.com and other Web 2.0 mind mapping tools. While I found these to be useful for their cross-computer options, I found the tools to be less than perfect. The controls were often touchy and in the end I found myself resorting back to Duarte's comments about simplicity and using sticky notes. As cool and interactive as many of these programs are, the hands on manipulatives often make the idea development more concrete and easier to handle. In my opinion anyway. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)