Google launches 'Drive' cloud storage service | StAugustine.com
Another choice for cloud-based storage rolls out to consumers this week. Personally, I already use Box and like it, but I'm willing to look at Google because I already use several Google services. Although I'm hesitant to store sensitive information on the cloud, certain data is a no brainer. Take photos, for example. Over the past two years, I've copied nearly all my digital photos to web storage. I still have them on personal media, but having them in the cloud gives me a back up. The importance of this is critical. Cloud storage is more secure against crashes and regularly backed up by the service. About two years ago, had both my main computer and my external hard drive back up crash with weeks of each other. Between the two, I had years of digital photography stored that chronicled my childrens' early lives. The media on the computer was totally lost after back up to the external drive, so when the external drive crashed I lost all access to those image (and other important data). The external drive can be recovered, but it's expensive and I haven't had the funds to do that yet.
Obviously, cloud computing isn't perfect. Google would be well served to remember that many users still have unreliable data access, making total cloud computing impractical. For users like me, who choose not to subscribe to mobile access, cloud computing is likewise not a full-time solution. Data protection is also a concern. What assurances do I have that other entities are not accessing data I consider confidential if I put it in the cloud? So there are still several critical concerns that need to be addressed before full-time cloud computing becomes a reality for all users. For now, however, cloud apps are a great way to share and collaborate, and cloud storage is excellent for easy back up.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
elearn Magazine: If Mobile Learning and Support are Wonderful, Why aren't They Everywhere?
elearn Magazine: If Mobile Learning and Support are Wonderful, Why aren't They Everywhere?
Why aren't more of us developing for mobile delivery? Allison Rossett ponders this conundrum in her recent article. With the prevalence of mobile devices, it seems only logical that e-Learning developers would be moving toward the mobile channel. It's not happening at the rate expected, however – at least according to Rossett. It pleased me to see that she didn't just open Pandora's box but attempted to account for its inventory as well. Of course, that's the beauty of Rossett – she doesn't leave us hanging without answers. She has provided us with a solid base to begin our own exploration of the topic. Here I'll add my own thoughts about the road blocks to mobile delivery.
As with any type of electronic delivery medium, the primary question comes back to design and delivery. If we refer ourselves back to the notorious methods or media debate (Richard Clark and Robert Kozma), we might ask if it is necessary to develop for mobile delivery at all. While I stand squarely in favor of first assessing the content need and then determining the best way to deliver it, I think we cannot ignore the fact that our learners are using mobile devices with increasing frequency. A paper case study might be an adequate way to deliver a learning activity, but if we can enliven that case study by making it interactive and delivering it directly to a learner's smartphone or tablet, shouldn't we? I believe the answer is yes.
That brings us to the first roadblock I see. Many designers and developers are just now beginning to grasp the particular merits and shortcomings of mobile devices. We are at a design crossroad. Can the same interactive experience designed for computer-based delivery simply be ported over for mobile delivery? Possibly, but we need to consider mobile platforms, device characteristics, and user habits, among other things. For example, when moving from paper to electronic media, researchers soon identified the "three-click rule" (users will typically only click three links deep before they give up). We also know that users will typically only scroll down a web page 2 or 3 times before leaving. When consuming audio or video, users typically have an attention span of 5 to 8 minutes. So we need to answer some questions about design requirements for mobile devices.
Another problem for many of us is that not all of our learners are using mobile devices. We cannot deliver required material strictly to mobile devices when not everybody has access. Until all our users have access to mobile devices, or organizations and schools are willing to require the use of mobile devices, designers and developers are limited to creating only enhanced content for mobile delivery.
From my personal perspective, I must admit that I have chosen to shun mobile computing. I don't have anything against it, but frankly I do not wish to be that tethered to a device. I like the feeling of being disconnected when I step away from my computer. Mobile computing options are expensive, as well. With the expenses of raising a family and maintaining a household, it's difficult to justify the additional $100 or so per month that mobile access would cost. And while I CHOOSE not to assume that cost, some folks quite simply don't have the means for mobile access. That's another roadblock.
So where do we go from here? Obviously, we cannot ignore the presence of mobile computing, and clearly the demand exists. I would propose that mobile delivery is something we ease into gradually. First, identify learning activities that can easily be delivered cross-platform with minimal adaptation, thus allowing universal access. Next, begin assessing the rate of mobile use and the interest of users; not everyone who has a mobile device will be interested in using it for learning. It will also become necessary to decide what types of learning experiences may be well suited for mobile learning. That means that even the reluctant, such as myself, must force ourselves into adopting mobile technology. It is impossible to understand how to create for a medium when you are not adept at using.
I still won't be giving out my number.
Why aren't more of us developing for mobile delivery? Allison Rossett ponders this conundrum in her recent article. With the prevalence of mobile devices, it seems only logical that e-Learning developers would be moving toward the mobile channel. It's not happening at the rate expected, however – at least according to Rossett. It pleased me to see that she didn't just open Pandora's box but attempted to account for its inventory as well. Of course, that's the beauty of Rossett – she doesn't leave us hanging without answers. She has provided us with a solid base to begin our own exploration of the topic. Here I'll add my own thoughts about the road blocks to mobile delivery.
As with any type of electronic delivery medium, the primary question comes back to design and delivery. If we refer ourselves back to the notorious methods or media debate (Richard Clark and Robert Kozma), we might ask if it is necessary to develop for mobile delivery at all. While I stand squarely in favor of first assessing the content need and then determining the best way to deliver it, I think we cannot ignore the fact that our learners are using mobile devices with increasing frequency. A paper case study might be an adequate way to deliver a learning activity, but if we can enliven that case study by making it interactive and delivering it directly to a learner's smartphone or tablet, shouldn't we? I believe the answer is yes.
That brings us to the first roadblock I see. Many designers and developers are just now beginning to grasp the particular merits and shortcomings of mobile devices. We are at a design crossroad. Can the same interactive experience designed for computer-based delivery simply be ported over for mobile delivery? Possibly, but we need to consider mobile platforms, device characteristics, and user habits, among other things. For example, when moving from paper to electronic media, researchers soon identified the "three-click rule" (users will typically only click three links deep before they give up). We also know that users will typically only scroll down a web page 2 or 3 times before leaving. When consuming audio or video, users typically have an attention span of 5 to 8 minutes. So we need to answer some questions about design requirements for mobile devices.
Another problem for many of us is that not all of our learners are using mobile devices. We cannot deliver required material strictly to mobile devices when not everybody has access. Until all our users have access to mobile devices, or organizations and schools are willing to require the use of mobile devices, designers and developers are limited to creating only enhanced content for mobile delivery.
From my personal perspective, I must admit that I have chosen to shun mobile computing. I don't have anything against it, but frankly I do not wish to be that tethered to a device. I like the feeling of being disconnected when I step away from my computer. Mobile computing options are expensive, as well. With the expenses of raising a family and maintaining a household, it's difficult to justify the additional $100 or so per month that mobile access would cost. And while I CHOOSE not to assume that cost, some folks quite simply don't have the means for mobile access. That's another roadblock.
So where do we go from here? Obviously, we cannot ignore the presence of mobile computing, and clearly the demand exists. I would propose that mobile delivery is something we ease into gradually. First, identify learning activities that can easily be delivered cross-platform with minimal adaptation, thus allowing universal access. Next, begin assessing the rate of mobile use and the interest of users; not everyone who has a mobile device will be interested in using it for learning. It will also become necessary to decide what types of learning experiences may be well suited for mobile learning. That means that even the reluctant, such as myself, must force ourselves into adopting mobile technology. It is impossible to understand how to create for a medium when you are not adept at using.
I still won't be giving out my number.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Elaborating on Online Accessibility - Inside Higher Ed
Elaborating on Online Accessibility - Inside Higher Ed
Listen up, onliners! The Department of Education is rapidly clearing up any misunderstandings that accessibility laws apply to non-public, online institutions. The sticking point in the latest proclamation, however, is whether universities can pursue technological innovations without worrying about being penalized if the new technology is non-compliant. Unfortunately, new technology is often not accessiblity compliant when first introduced, and the only effective way to make it accessible is to implement it and work with it.
I am a huge advocate of accessible digital content, but would hope that we can pursue a balance that would continue to encourage and promote innovation.
Listen up, onliners! The Department of Education is rapidly clearing up any misunderstandings that accessibility laws apply to non-public, online institutions. The sticking point in the latest proclamation, however, is whether universities can pursue technological innovations without worrying about being penalized if the new technology is non-compliant. Unfortunately, new technology is often not accessiblity compliant when first introduced, and the only effective way to make it accessible is to implement it and work with it.
I am a huge advocate of accessible digital content, but would hope that we can pursue a balance that would continue to encourage and promote innovation.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Company Review: Common Craft
Thanks to a colleague, I stumbled across Common Craft, a company that produces short, animated videos that provide simple explanations to common, but advanced, topics. Check out a few of their titles. I liked the "Social Media and the Workplace" title. The videos are short (a VERY good thing!) and engaging with a whimsical approach to delivery. Even I enjoyed watching, and I have a hard time focusing on audio-visual presentations.
Common Craft offers several different licensing options that are quite affordable. The only complaint I have is that I did not see an accessibility option. The videos are almost entirely visual, so without a script or captioning they would be of little value to someone who is hearing-impaired.
Common Craft offers several different licensing options that are quite affordable. The only complaint I have is that I did not see an accessibility option. The videos are almost entirely visual, so without a script or captioning they would be of little value to someone who is hearing-impaired.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Searching for Relevance
As my fellow cohort members and I struggle with narrated PowerPoints and motivation moving into our third semester of studies, the issue of relevance raises its ugly head. What does it mean to be relevant? How do we achieve it? Is our work worthy?
One aspect of establishing a professional presence for the doctoral student is scholarship -- studying, researching, observing, and writing, then sharing our observations with the rest of the world. In doing so, we hope to contribute something relevant to the field. We are quickly discovering, however, that what seems relevant to us is not to our peers. Likewise, what is being passed off as relevant in journals and at conferences often fails to live up to expectations. I think the latter is what I fear most. Too often, I have read an article or attended a conference session and thought, "Why did you even bother?"
I am pondering a conference proposal now -- my first as a doctoral student. I have presented at many conferences and meetings, sometimes as a selected participant and other times as an invited guest. In my presentations, I always try to offer a perspective that will appeal to my audience and perhaps shed new light or offer a different direction. The information may not be earth shattering, or even particularly innovative, but I hope for it to spark some interest in my audience. If it does that, then it is relevant.
One aspect of establishing a professional presence for the doctoral student is scholarship -- studying, researching, observing, and writing, then sharing our observations with the rest of the world. In doing so, we hope to contribute something relevant to the field. We are quickly discovering, however, that what seems relevant to us is not to our peers. Likewise, what is being passed off as relevant in journals and at conferences often fails to live up to expectations. I think the latter is what I fear most. Too often, I have read an article or attended a conference session and thought, "Why did you even bother?"
I am pondering a conference proposal now -- my first as a doctoral student. I have presented at many conferences and meetings, sometimes as a selected participant and other times as an invited guest. In my presentations, I always try to offer a perspective that will appeal to my audience and perhaps shed new light or offer a different direction. The information may not be earth shattering, or even particularly innovative, but I hope for it to spark some interest in my audience. If it does that, then it is relevant.
Monday, May 16, 2011
For the visually challenged
No, I do not mean in a physical way. I mean in the way we consume information. Most people are visual: they like to see a graphical representation of the information. I am one of those rare people who prefer text. Not only do I prefer text, I find it difficult to try to visualize how to represent information in a graphical format. Therefore, when I am asked to provide a visual, it is often a form that incorporates text. My latest attempt was a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) diagram.
I used a nifty little program called Gliffy, suggested in the week's assignment notes. It's an online flowcharting and diagramming tool. It's very robust, offering numerous types of diagrams and options. It was easy to use and very flexible. You get a free 30-day premium account for signing up. At the end of 30 days, your account reverts to a basic account or you pay to continue the premium account. Pricing is tiered and starts at just $5 monthly for an individual account. The premium account would probably be worthwhile if you do a lot of diagramming but don't need the functionality of say a Visio or other design tool. I liked the fact that it provided options for text/graphical charts that appeal to those of us who still like to read.
I used a nifty little program called Gliffy, suggested in the week's assignment notes. It's an online flowcharting and diagramming tool. It's very robust, offering numerous types of diagrams and options. It was easy to use and very flexible. You get a free 30-day premium account for signing up. At the end of 30 days, your account reverts to a basic account or you pay to continue the premium account. Pricing is tiered and starts at just $5 monthly for an individual account. The premium account would probably be worthwhile if you do a lot of diagramming but don't need the functionality of say a Visio or other design tool. I liked the fact that it provided options for text/graphical charts that appeal to those of us who still like to read.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Non-Visual in a Visual World
I am something of an anomaly; visual aids hold little interest for me. Unlike most people, I learn mostly from reading and applying what I've read in a kinesthetic way. In other words, I read the directions and put things together, or sometimes I just dive in and start assembling things. Sometimes I might look at a diagram, but rarely is that my first choice.
More frequently in my studies, I'm being asked to make graphical representations of concepts and processes. This is a challenge for me. Concept maps in particular are somewhat confusing. I'm a rather methodical and orderly person in my thought processes. I deal best with outlines, lists, and tables. Concept maps, to me, are anything but orderly.
What happens when we are asked to think outside our comfort zone? Can we competently adapt to new ways of doing things? Or do we merely stumble through it just to complete the exercise?
More frequently in my studies, I'm being asked to make graphical representations of concepts and processes. This is a challenge for me. Concept maps in particular are somewhat confusing. I'm a rather methodical and orderly person in my thought processes. I deal best with outlines, lists, and tables. Concept maps, to me, are anything but orderly.
What happens when we are asked to think outside our comfort zone? Can we competently adapt to new ways of doing things? Or do we merely stumble through it just to complete the exercise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)