1. Implementing an editor for IMS Learning Design: Technical and Usability issues in the development of Reload David Griffiths, Phillip Beauvoir, Mark Baxendale, Paul Hazlewood, Amanda Oddie

2. Overview The Reload Learning Design Editor Use of the Reload Learning Design Editor with practitioners Towards a new Reload Learning Design Editor

3. The Reload Learning Design editor General purpose editor Close to Learning Design specification Similar to Metadata and Content Package editor –But specification more complex- poses challenges

4. Challenges posed by the specification LD editor initially based on Reload CP editor –XML schema based approach LD demanded major changes to interface –Complexity of the specification –Not following the conventional tree-based schema

6. The Eclipse framework Flexible plug-in architecture Extensive set of UI features Speeded up development for level B/C editor –From Swing to Eclipse in 6 weeks –From level A to levels B and C in 6 weeks

8. Adoption Resulting software widely used –as a reference to experiment with the specification –In real teaching situations Fully compliant with the specification Others have built on the Editor –E.g. Collage Adoption as client software within TENCompetence

9. The development approach High level of continuity within the team and development of expertise in application domains Involvement of various user groups Iterative development –Team develops prototypes, users feed back –"release early and often"

10. Use of the Reload LD Editor with teachers Currently presents entire specification to the user Target group was technical staff/researchers Liverpool Hope University used Reload to author real UoLs –Best available editor

11. User evaluation Workshops in Higher Education (HE) and Further Education (FE) Use of real examples set in users’ own context Users from a range of subjects Participants in trials of Reload with practitioners IT Lecturer in HE1 Participants in workshop at ALT-C conference21 Participants in workshop in FE5 Participants in workshop in HE5 Users in FE after 3/4 weeks2

12. User evaluation Generally positive about –Usefulness –Understanding different sections (of editor) Generally negative about –Usability –Knowing how to work through the software Regular users able to produce UoLs to level A –Required support to produce level B Underlying metaphors of Learning Design seem accessible to practitioners Valuable to provide an interface designed for practitioners, as well as for technical experts

13. Towards a new Reload Learning Design Editor Recommendations from user evaluation –Layouts (panels, menus, icons) which are more visual –Provision of a code view –The use of visual cues –Provision of a “catalogue” of resources Developing a prototype –Further evaluation with users