HEURISTICS SUPPORTING USABLE AUTHORING TOOLS - Matching the right tool to the right user

Paula Kotzé, Elsabe Cloete

2004

Abstract

Over the past few years while e-learning has been gaining momentum, the user profile of instructional authoring tools has also evolved. It seems that commercial authoring products have not yet been adapted to address all user groups, which impedes lecturers in their working environment while preparing e-learning materials, with the materials not achieving the required quality as a result. In this paper heuristics to design an authoring tool aimed at a specific user group, namely the ordinary lecturer, are described to enable subject-expert lecturers (not necessarily technically skilled) to create and reuse their own e-materials without undergoing intensive technical training. The significance of these heuristics lies in the fact that they provide a method to overcome many of the complexities associated with the design of instructional authoring tools. Furthermore, tools developed according to these heuristics might enable institutions to cope with the universal design demands associated with e-learning, without their e-learning programmes being delayed by the scarcity of professional instructional designers and instructional programmers.

References

  1. Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), (n.d). Retrieved April 2003 from http://www.adlnet.org.
  2. ARIADNE, (n.d.). Retrieved April 2003 from http://www.adlnet.org.
  3. ASTD Certification Institute, 2002. ECC Standards. Available from Retrieved October 2003 from http://www.astd.org/ecertification/standards.htm.
  4. Badre A.N., 2002. Shaping Web Usability. Addison Wesley.
  5. Cloete E. & Kotzé P., 2003. Interaction parameters in the design of authoring support environments. Technical Report: TR-UNISA-2003-01. Available from: http://www.cs.unisa.ac.za/TechnicalReports/
  6. National Cancer Institute, (n.d.). Usability Retrieved October 2003 http://usability.gov/basics/index.html
  7. De Vries, F., 2002. Valkenburg group moving forward. Retrieved October 2003 from http://learningnetworks .org/forums/
  8. Dix A., Finley J., Abowd G.D., & Beale R., 2004. Human Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall, Third Edition.
  9. Duchastel P., 2001. Learnabililty. Retrieved October 2003 from http://home.earthlink.net/castelnet/info/ learnability.htm.
  10. EML, 2001. Open Universiteit Nederland - Learning Networks. Retrieved November 2002 from http://eml.ou.nl/eml-ou-nl.htm.
  11. IDE, 2002. Innovations in Distance Education. Retrieved October 2003 from http://www.outreach.psu.edu /de/ide/.
  12. IEEE P1484.12, (n.d). Learning object metadata working group (IEEE's LOM). Retrieved April 2003 from http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/index.html.
  13. IMS, (2002). IMS Global Learning Consortium. Retrieved April 2003. Available at http://www.imsglobal.org.
  14. Kotzé P., 1997. The Use of Formal Methods in the Design of Interactive Authoring Support Environments. PhD Thesis. Research Report YCST 97/09, Department of Computer Science, University of York (UK).
  15. Macromedia Inc., 2002. Macromedia Authorware Support Center. Retrieved October 2003 from http://www.macromedia.com/support/authorware.
  16. Mehlenbacher B., 2001. Usable Web-based Instruction Resources. Retrieved October 2003 from http://www4.ncsu.edu:8030/brad_m/publications.htm l#Web-Based.
  17. Miller M.G. & Cloete E., 2003. Authoring tool for technical and technically-challenged e-learning designers. In Proceedings of CATE 2003, International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education.
  18. Preece J., Rogers Y., and Sharp H., 2002. Interaction Design: Beyond Human Computer Interaction. Addison Wesley.
  19. Proctor R., 2002. Usability I: Principles and guidelines. Retrieved October 2003 from http://www.informatics. ed.ac.uk/teaching/modules/hci/slides6.pdf.
  20. Step Two Designs Pty Ltd., 2002. How to evaluate a content management system. KM Column. Retrieved October 2003 from http://www.steptwo.com.au/ papers/kmc_evaluate/index.html.
  21. Tennyson, R.D., 2001. Defining core competencies of an instructional technologist. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 355-362.
  22. W3C, 2000. Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved October 2003 from http://www.w3.org/ TR/ATAG10/.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kotzé P. and Cloete E. (2004). HEURISTICS SUPPORTING USABLE AUTHORING TOOLS - Matching the right tool to the right user . In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS, ISBN 972-8865-00-7, pages 169-178. DOI: 10.5220/0002612901690178


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis04,
author={Paula Kotzé and Elsabe Cloete},
title={HEURISTICS SUPPORTING USABLE AUTHORING TOOLS - Matching the right tool to the right user},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS,},
year={2004},
pages={169-178},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002612901690178},
isbn={972-8865-00-7},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS,
TI - HEURISTICS SUPPORTING USABLE AUTHORING TOOLS - Matching the right tool to the right user
SN - 972-8865-00-7
AU - Kotzé P.
AU - Cloete E.
PY - 2004
SP - 169
EP - 178
DO - 10.5220/0002612901690178