Amy you are absolutely correct. I am a veteran RIA developer who is writing eLearning applications. My client has traditionally created ASP.NET pages with minimal flair. They asked me to develop an immersive full-screen learning environment using Adobe Flex. So far it is working out great. The trouble is interfacing with existing learning management systems as they are mostly proprietary and unnecessarily complicated due to interoperability requirements such as SCORM or AICC compliance which is geared more towards traditional web platforms.

I think we're already seeing a trend away from LMS's and toward having eLearning that is more impromptu and approachable to learners, such as performance support built right into a web or desktop application. The sad fact of the matter is that interoperability standards seem to encourage, if not require, eLearning that's not very engaging. LMS's also don't integrate well with content engines, which makes it difficult to leverage adnvanced techniques by using the same code over and over with data-driven content.

Given these limitations with LMS's and the considerable expense involved with using one, I think a lot of companies are reassessing the ROI of using an LMS.

Our company produces engaging Flash, video and Flex-based RIA technology for e-Learning. We too are seeing a trend away from the traditional, uninspiring content out there. LMS's provide a useful benefit for customers in their ability to control, track and monitor users, and with a bit of cleverness, we've been able to fit all of the really cool stuff into that very constraining box known as SCORM and AICC. We generally try to program only the LMS features that are absolutely necessary--which helps .

I find that very few clients actually need standards-based e-learning anyway. In my experience, most modules are out of date before any need arises to move it to another "standards-compliant" platform, so usually we end up just developing for the particular LMS or platform they want to use.

Amen Amy- I've been thinking about this topic a lot recently and I'm excited about the future as well. I think FLEX especially Flash Player 10 (unloadAndStop) will have a big impact on e-learning.

But, there is often a divide between e-learning Developers and Instructional Designers as well. In the Design phase (ADDIE ) Developers are often left out and the Designers don't know what's possible. So developers are left with production duties in the Develop phase or content development (the learning bits) tend to be produced by ISD folks with little design or development background using Captivate (or worse) - usually from PowerPoint source material supplied by an SME. Developers produce the "chrome" and the content is loaded in. The full potential of e-learning as an RIA is not realized. Often the PowerPoint mindset of the source material is still intact.

Oh yeah, and then there's SCORM... (psst... put it all in one SCO).

If e-learning teams communicate and share ideas, there is huge potential for engaging and educational e-learning using RIA concepts and practices.

For SCORM compatibility with Flash-based content, maybe you should try the JavaScript SCORM framework on www.pipwerks.com

I think many of us are looking at moving away from the LMS as *the* training repository. An application like this that can combine performance support *and* training is a good answer for many training needs:-

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/marketplace/index.cfm?event=marketplace.offering&offeringid=10230&marketplaceid=1

Steve

"Developers are often left out and the Designers don't know what's possible."

Don't I just know it!

Fortunately, where I currently work we've been having an extended conversation about engagement, technology etc. Our IDs are still not fully savvy with all that is available to them, but I've shown them lots of examples and we've prototyped lots of stuff that means the IDs are now chomping at the bit to move forward into new technologies and they are consulting with me in *advance* of writing the scripts instead of afterwards!

@Steve W:

I think that the fact that the job titles "Interaction Designer" and "Instructional Designer" are so similar by iteslf means that we're going to get some crossover between those two roles. Some of it will be deliberate, from hiring managers who see the value in bringing in people with related skills but a different view, but some of it will just come from the fact that this is what happens when you have people hiring who have never done the job they are hiring for.

I see this as a tremendous positive for both the eLearning and RIA worlds, and for eLearning in particular, I think that we're likely to see the powerpoint page turner become less and lees acceptable. I also think that Flash Catalyst will go a long way toward allowing nontechnical people who would like to design more interactive content to have a better idea of what is possible.

Good conversation.

I agree with Amy, It seems like it's becoming increasingly difficult for ID's to depend on 'traditional' methods/practices for Elearning production. Technology (especially web) has evolved at such a rapid pace--it's quickly outdated a lot of the content that was developed under old development paradigms. It seems to me that best ID's are either detached from development (to promote creativity; keep themselves from being stuck in a specific development paradigm) or always keeping up as best they can with in order to continually know what's possible. I try to do the latter.