Comments on: The Evolution of SCORM http://scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/ We make SCORM easy Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:11:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: SCORM, LMS’s and the E-Learning standards mess « BCmoney MobileTV http://scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/comment-page-1/#comment-731 SCORM, LMS’s and the E-Learning standards mess « BCmoney MobileTV Tue, 05 Apr 2011 06:38:41 +0000 http://beta.scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/#comment-731 [...] 2010: I shared more thoughts on this at the following Evolution of SCORM post The field of E-Learning is desperately in need of a new standard; one which unifies rather than [...] [...] 2010: I shared more thoughts on this at the following Evolution of SCORM post The field of E-Learning is desperately in need of a new standard; one which unifies rather than [...]

]]> By: Becky Peters http://scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/comment-page-1/#comment-730 Becky Peters Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:38:10 +0000 http://beta.scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/#comment-730 Hi, I am a freelance instructional designer with a variety of clients who have a mixture of LMS and versions of SCORM. Where can I get an broader understanding of what each of the versions provide and require for designing and delivering E-learning modules and assessments? I am finding out the hard way that not all versions will communicate test results back to the LMS nor will they retain records. Is there a chart that visualizes the performance components vs each version? Thanks Becky Hi, I am a freelance instructional designer with a variety of clients who have a mixture of LMS and versions of SCORM.

Where can I get an broader understanding of what each of the versions provide and require for designing and delivering E-learning modules and assessments? I am finding out the hard way that not all versions will communicate test results back to the LMS nor will they retain records.

Is there a chart that visualizes the performance components vs each version?

Thanks Becky

]]> By: Bryan Copeland http://scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/comment-page-1/#comment-294 Bryan Copeland Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:51:56 +0000 http://beta.scorm.com/blog/2007/12/the-evolution-of-scorm/#comment-294 Interesting post... After researching it the past few weeks (note the disclaimer) SCORM 1.2 .vs. SCORM 2004 seems to be more like the Blu-ray .vs. HD debate that took the movie industry by storm and ended not too long after your post, than DVD .vs. VHS. By this I mean, you didn't necessarily need entirely new players to support both formats (i.e. to get a basic view of the film you could "rip" the packaged contents off your disk and watch it on your computer in an intermediary format like MP4, FLV or AVI)... However for the best experience you'd be better off with new players, and it was the hardware that really differentiated how the images/sound got displayed, how much/where the contents were stored and presentation of additional special features. In the end they were really almost identical though, and it didn't matter to the consumer much whether it was HD or Blu-ray. In fact, the only time they really cared about it was when one format one out over the other and they discovered that discs in the format they purchased no longer worked in the latest players. Even then, the final solution was players that supported both formats... This post also gave me some ideas about SCORM 2.0, do you know how to go about getting involved in its development? First and foremost, I think SCORM 2004 already has a 2 in it, and really should have been called SCORM 2 if it followed sequence (though I have heard it referred to as SCORM 1.3)... I think it's alot simpler if we start referring to the next iteration as SCORM 3.0 Secondly, I think it has the chance to be the intermediary format and the multi-format-supporting player... Something which can be even more self-contained than previous versions, yet gracefully fallback to previous versions. Now we have another lesson in format wars playing out right before us with the HTML5 video debate (Ogg .vs. MP4 .vs. WebM). The HTML5 video solution is quite elegant and scalable though, a simple tag with a few new configuration options, nothing too exciting... but: allows three separate formats to play together nicely... can't SCORM be so simple too? Then again, maybe I'm a dreamer... Interesting post…
After researching it the past few weeks (note the disclaimer) SCORM 1.2 .vs. SCORM 2004 seems to be more like the Blu-ray .vs. HD debate that took the movie industry by storm and ended not too long after your post, than DVD .vs. VHS.

By this I mean, you didn’t necessarily need entirely new players to support both formats (i.e. to get a basic view of the film you could “rip” the packaged contents off your disk and watch it on your computer in an intermediary format like MP4, FLV or AVI)… However for the best experience you’d be better off with new players, and it was the hardware that really differentiated how the images/sound got displayed, how much/where the contents were stored and presentation of additional special features.

In the end they were really almost identical though, and it didn’t matter to the consumer much whether it was HD or Blu-ray. In fact, the only time they really cared about it was when one format one out over the other and they discovered that discs in the format they purchased no longer worked in the latest players. Even then, the final solution was players that supported both formats…

This post also gave me some ideas about SCORM 2.0, do you know how to go about getting involved in its development?

First and foremost, I think SCORM 2004 already has a 2 in it, and really should have been called SCORM 2 if it followed sequence (though I have heard it referred to as SCORM 1.3)… I think it’s alot simpler if we start referring to the next iteration as SCORM 3.0

Secondly, I think it has the chance to be the intermediary format and the multi-format-supporting player… Something which can be even more self-contained than previous versions, yet gracefully fallback to previous versions.

Now we have another lesson in format wars playing out right before us with the HTML5 video debate (Ogg .vs. MP4 .vs. WebM).

The HTML5 video solution is quite elegant and scalable though, a simple tag with a few new configuration options, nothing too exciting… but:

allows three separate formats to play together nicely… can’t SCORM be so simple too?

Then again, maybe I’m a dreamer…

]]>