Please see my SharePoint article on The Content Wrangler site.
Popping the Question
About two weeks ago, I joined a project that is already fairly close to its go-live date. When I start a project at a client’s office, I ask these questions:
- Where is the coffee?
- I think I mentioned that I drink coffee; where is the bathroom?
- Any peanut allergies here? (If so, I am prepared to eat my snacks outside, shivering alongside the smokers)
- Is this thing that I’m working on backed up?
- Where can I find Post-It Notes?
It turns out that, yes, their thing was being backed up. Their particular thing is a forthcoming re-lease of their public Web site. Good thing, too; let’s just say I have a history.
I remember what happened on previous projects when I didn’t ask all those questions. Like the time I located the coffee, but found myself lost in an unfamiliar building, seemingly miles from a bathroom.
Or the time I deleted a client’s SharePoint portal (forever) within 1/2 hour of joining the project.
About a year ago, I learned something intriguing about SharePoint. You can delete a site collection from WITHIN that site collection. I know this, because I accidentally did this upon starting the project.
My client had asked about a styling problem. He asked that I not touch the current style sheet because people were going to be reviewing the site that day. So to work beneath their radar, I created a sub site–three levels down in the hieararchy–to do some testing.
I soon learned that the problem was actually with a mal-formed custom layout template and took the following steps:
- Informed my client of the issue
- Fixed the problem on the layout template
- Applied my changes
- Performed a quick round of QA
- Deleted my 3rd-level test site, in SharePoint Manage Content and Structure view
Actually……I deleted the top-level site–the site collection–and subsequently EVERYTHING that lay beneath. Buh-Bye, sub-sites, document libraries, calendars…..
I asked my client who was taking care of the SharePoint backups and was given some phone numbers of DBAs and system administrators. The answers to my question about backups were reminiscent of that recurring Family Circus theme when the parents asked “Who did this?” and received one of these answers from the children:
- “Not Me”
- “Ida Know”
No backup. All the content that had been there at 8:00 am that day was gone by 8:25. My fingerprints were all over the mouse button that clicked the “OK” button in the dialogue box to authorize the deletion.
My colleague, who had been with the project for a few weeks, was able to recreate the few changes he had made to the cascading style sheet and layout templates fairly quickly. A bigger problem was ressurecting the SharePoint libraries and lists.
My client recognized that it wasn’t my fault that the sites were not being backed up. Still, I felt like a dolt, not just because I whacked the site collection (could happen to anybody) but because I didn’t ask about backups. Bad business analyst! BAD!
I’ve since taken the won’t-get-fooled again approach. In subsequent projects, I recognized that I need to enquire about backups BEFORE touching the site (and after ensuring continuity of caffeination).
SCORM And Monkeys By The Barrel
I am currently re-acquainting myself with some learning management systems and thus have been discussing the SCORM interoperability standard with several of my cyberfriends. I sat down today with intent to blog about SCORM.
However, as was the case with my SharePoint-as-DAM blog a few weeks back, I already had provided a pretty good description of SCORM on a Linkedin discussion (for Masters of Digital Assets) in response to a question that was posted by Michael Moon.
So in the spirit of content reuse, here is my response to Michael’s SCORM question:
My previous company had a fairly large presence in the educational market, thus I was involved in several projects in which we utilized SharePoint Learning Kit (SLK) to deliver SCORM-compliant learning object. SLK is an open-source add-on to SharePoint. SLK will store and deliver SCORM-compliant learning content, and permits the storage of assessment data.
However, if a learning object is properly described it will (read: should’) work with any learning management system that is SCORM-compliant. Most learning management systems (Blackboard, Moodle..) will provide SCORM support.I recently found this site. I don’t know anything about the software that the company is peddling, but the site does offer a pretty good SCORM overview.
There’s a number of authoring tools that enable the creation of SCORM content. Additionally there are some third-party tools that will allow a user to make SCORM packages from file formats such as PowerPoint, or Word.
I recently worked on a project where I developed the SCORM-compliant content. The tool of choice was Adobe Captivate (GREAT tool for demonstrations and assessment). The learning objects were Flash-based .zip packages and were delivered with SLK. Users had the ability to view demonstrations (SharePoint how-to’s”) at any time, and could prove competency by taking quizzes.
For those of you researching SCORM, you’ll find zillions of presentations and papers that try to describe SCORM with a Lego metaphor—implying that learning objects are easily snapped together to form lessons, or entire courses. HA!
I once ran across a presentation which suggested that aggregating SCORM learning objects more resembled this game. I thought BOM was a little closer to the mark.
The message here, is that a SCORM-compliant learning management system is going to require planning, development, training and maintenance. Be wary of any reference to Legos when talking about learning objects.
I am currently developing some (DAM-related) ideas in the accessibility space and will writing more about SCORM-savvy DAM tools in future posts.
For now, back to my Moodle proof of concept.
Accessible Packaging and the Best Buy Test
Is that 1-2 Tablespoons, or 12 Tablespoons?
Here’s my problem: I can’t see the damn dosage recommendations on a bottle of children’s pain reliever or any other pharmaceutical packaging for that matter. Worse still, I can’t see the active ingredients, or the disclaimer copy. Regardless of your age, or acuity, I’m sure you have experienced similar frustration.
The Larger Issue
I am in my mid 40’s, and wear progressive lenses (polite word for bifocals) which provide me with otherwise, pretty good vision. I can make out the ingredients list on most food packages, I’m usually befuddled by contents on pharmaceuticals.
While the inabiliy to read packaging is a chronic annoyance, it does presents huge levels of risk when dosage levels, or allergies are concerned. Why are we allowing such a violation of usability principles when there are such potentially dire consequence?
That is the question I have asked myself every cold and flu season and sometimes spent a few moments mapping out potential solutions. Then I’d get distracted—the cat had a hairball, or there’s a good rerun of ”Seinfeld” on cable—you know the feeling.
People-Compliant Content
I am former ad guy, working on a graduate degree in educational technology with a minor in special ed. Thus, it’s been something of a crusade of mine to explore accessibility options in all forms of communication.
I believe that the focus of assistive technology should be geared to allowing for flexible content that can be more easily adapted for the needs of the end user. In short, content should be designed such that it is people-compliant. Traditional print vehicles present and accessibility challenge because they are fixed and lack flexibility.
Death of Print Has Been Greatly Exaggerated
Despite what you may heard about the decline of newspapers, print is not dead. Until we get to a point where digital product labels are practical, we live with printed labels that are fixed, crowded and hard to read. Print is not especially people-compliant, thus necessitating the need for assistive technology.
Affordable Assistive Devices
My view is that assistive hardware should pass the ”Best Buy test” That is, content should be accessible on devices (personal computers, cell phones, etc.) that you are likely to be found in many homes. This relieves the burden of the user with disability from having to spring for a costly specialized device.
With regard to packaging-usability, I had been toying with some assistive technology scenarios for making packaging more accessible, beginning with RFID technology.
I soon realized many problems with RFID, but most importantly: I would fail the Best Buy test. A consumer-grade RFID scanner? Every see one of those at Best Buy? I eventually circled back to optical-recognition. Most cell phones already had cameras, why couldn’t the phones become scanners?
I have recently learned that the solution has probably been been gathering around me in the development of apps for “smartphones.” All this, while I muddle through the days with ”intellectually-challenged phone” (funny that we now complain when the phone only’ has a video camera, calendar, calculator… on it).
Phones That See
As a dumphone user, I had to be made aware of 21st century technology by my printed edition of Newsweek. In the article, I learned about an innovative company , Occipital, that has developed the means of turning an iPhone into a barcode scanner for the purpose of comparison shopping and nutritional planning.
I also learned that they have developed another application that will scan a bar code and compare it against a database of 200,000 products for nutritional planning.
Yesterday, I learned of a Google’s mobile phone app for reading barcodes.
How Can These Solutions Promote Accessibility?
As they used to say in the Six Million Dollar Man, ”We have the technology.” Though it’s unclear what these companies are planning in the area of accessibility with their applications.
In looking at my original problem statement, in light of this smartphone technology, the question becomes how do we leverage existing technology to make inflexible media (such as packaging) more accessible to consumers?
Here is a high-level description, of what the smartphones could offer:
- A consumer would to be able to use a device that will allow the consumer to understand the composition, and risks of what is contained inside the package. Real simply: a user would be given option to view/hear dosage level, disclaimers and ingredients in enlarged text, or audio-video formats.
- A consumer should be able to set up a profile that will be able to compare their needs, or restrictions, against specific ingredients in packaged foods or drugs. For example: if my profile shows that I am allergic to peanuts I should be able to know immediately if a product contains peanuts (ingredients) or if there is risk to exposure to peanuts during the manufacturing process (disclaimer).
- A consumer should have the ability to see, or hear, the ingredients, dosages and disclaimer in languages other than the one in which packaging is written.
Benefits to the consumer
Well, being able to read package with the intent of avoiding lethal dosages, or allergic reactions is enough for me.
Moving forward
The technology is here, though there is still much to ponder:
- What are other opportunities are there to make print vehicle more accessible? I can think of a few. (Don’t limit the thinking to UPC, there are other types of barcodes. And while you’re at it, don’t limit the thinking to barcodes. Think about character- and picture-recognition opportunities as well).
- What non-technical challenges (information architecture, content management, training…) lie ahead? I can think of a lot, though the payoff will be well worth it.