Com-sux-tic: They actually train them to do this?!?

We’ve had serious problems with our cable TV connection. Dreading the conversation I knew was going to occur, we called Comcast, our provider … of course we had to walk through the typical ‘punch list’ items of:
“Please unplug the cable box, wait five minutes …”
“Let me test your signal from the office here …”
and on and on

No dice! We have to schedule a technician to come to the house. After several screw ups with the appointment on their end, the Comcast tech arrives and does really nothing but look at the connections and tells us that we’re okay.

Only to have the very same problem re-occur the following week. Yep – we have to get a tech to come back for a second visit. 

So, as the wife is on the phone scheduling the appointment with them, the representative asks, “And would you be interested in our Triple Play service?”

Huh?!? So, let me get this straight … we’re calling a second time for a problem that should have been solved the first time (indeed we were told that it was fixed the first time – HA!) … and after the second exasperating call with the operator, she asks if we want to purchase yet more services from them?!?

Hey, Comcast! I have an idea … deliver your TV service flawlessly first.

I can’t help but think that this operator went through some kind of training, however cursory, that cajoled her into trying to cross-sell and up-sell when their current customers call. A very cookie-cutter approach …
Here’s the problem with such a cookie-cutter approach … this phone operator should have been trained on when it is appropriate to attempt an additional sale (or at least when to avoid an attempt, as in when an already frustrated and irate customer is on the phone) .

Hey Adobe – Webinar registration FAIL

So – I wanted to sign up for a lil’ ol’ webinar hosted by Adobe. In this age of easy and fast I get this first screen when trying to sign up: (click the image for a larger version)

So, I have to be “a customer” in order to sign up for this thing. Strike one! Why? Well, they do provide a short bullet point of so-called benefits to being a member (wait – I thought I was a customer) but I don’t care about any of these. Just get me to the webinar sign up screen.

Deciding to continue, because I really do want to sign up for the webinar … after this screen I come against: (click the image for a larger version)

A survey – and notice that every single field is required (see those little red asterisks?) for me to continue. Why? Why required? What purpose does this information serve in merely registering for a webinar?

Perhaps Adobe gets some demographic information, which they can then aggregate. But WTF!?! This doesn’t help me, the user. At the very least make this crap optional.

I understand that one could argue that since Adobe is hosting this webinar and that we’d be using their tech to participate that they, as owners of the tech, can call the shots. Yet what is the real benefit to me, the participant? How about the notion of some customer focus?

Oh well … Adobe, you lost me. Not gonna attend … not gonna. And who knows – I might have become a mouthpiece for your tech if it were really really good and useful. But instead because of this lame a$$ maneuver you’ve not only lost me, but have soured me and turned me into an opponent

links for 2009-07-22

• Free Alternatives to Photoshop With All the Bells, Whistles, Filters, & Layers
  rounded up and road-tested seven free resources that pack the punch of Photoshop's bells and whistles without the price
  (tags: apps free opensource tools)

links for 2009-07-06

• Open Source Software for Windows- Suggested Applications
  (tags: opensource software applications windows)

links for 2009-07-02

• The Non-Drowsy Virtual Classroom – July 09 Fundamentals – July – ASTD
  when they move from the traditional classroom to the virtual classroom, many facilitators revert to lecture and presentation mode. If you think that a straightforward lecture is a snoozer in the classroom, it’s 10 times worse in the virtual classroom when the only element participants rely on to keep them engaged is the sound of your voice.
  To deliver online classes that are engaging, consider these five keys to better facilitation in the virtual classroom.
  (tags: learning)

links for 2009-06-24

• Google Wave in 10 Minutes « Experiencing E-Learning
  I'm often challenged by teachers and trainers to provide a list of useful pieces of scientific theory which can be used to change current practice, so here goes. (Note that I had real trouble whittling it down to just ten.)
  (tags: tools google_wave)
• LINE | Features
  I'm often challenged by teachers and trainers to provide a list of useful pieces of scientific theory which can be used to change current practice, so here goes. (Note that I had real trouble whittling it down to just ten.)
  (tags: research learning instructional_design)

links for 2009-04-20

• An Illustrated Guide To Using Twitter | Applicant – The Advice Bank
  you will find a visual guide to twitter which highlights some of the ways twitter can be helpful either for personal use or business.
  (tags: twitter guide tools)

links for 2009-04-16

• The Online Collaboration Tools Guide – ReadWriteWeb
  recaps/reviews of some online editors and synchronization tools for collaboration.
  (tags: collaboration tools productivity)

links for 2009-04-10

• The Webinar Blog: Get Started Already!
  Remember the hoary old cliché: You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Your first impression can be that you are delivering value or it can be that content is secondary to procedural protocol. Which is more likely to engage your audience and make them receptive to the remainder of the session?
  (tags: webinars howto tips)

links for 2009-03-26

• Twenty-One Interesting Ways to use Twitter in the Classroom – Google Docs
  A slideshow; each slide has an excellent, fun, educational suggestion
  (tags: web2.0 twitter)

How Can We Incorporate Gaming into our Instructional Designs?

I had posted previously about a workgroup formed to explore game-based learning in my organization. Even though the actual project was cancelled and the workgroup disbanded, I’ve still had conversations with colleagues and team mates about the use of games in a learning organization. 

One of the first conversations focused almost exclusively on technology, tools, authoring programs … as well as ‘can we get or buy something?’ and the like. I pushed back on this … this is the wrong focus for any first conversation about gaming and learning. 

“So, what would you propose we look at first?” came the reply. … fair enough.

I think it important, first of all, to know how individuals actually learn in a game … not from a cognitive science point of view, but look at how a game’s design facilitates learning within the game itself. And then figure out how to incorporate these same design principles into our instructional designs. We could incorporate these principles without any focus on technology or software or authoring tools and the like.

And there are (I’m willing to bet) many of these principles we could incorporate with very little effort. For instance, games use conventions of choice (being able to choose your character type or weapon), controls (the mechanics of navigating the game and controlling your character/avatar), story and the like. We could fairly easily inject these principles into our instructional designs.

For instance, how do I learn how to use the game and its controls?
This can be incorporated into, let’s say, the typical “how to use this web-based training program” lesson/topic (of which it seems nearly every WBT I’ve taken all include).

From a game perspective, there might be many many ways I will need to move the camera, move my character, use items, etc. I recently completed Fable II (awesome game, by the way!) – and there were so many controls available to me that I had to learn in order to complete the game.  

But a good game only introduces what I need to know when I need to know it. When I first played an Indiana Jones game on the Playstation 2, a single sentence appeared on screen: “Move the right stick forward to walk.” That was it! 

I then had to walk forward along a path for a short while – and then I came upon a rock ledge. A single sentence appeared, “Hold the right stick forward to climb the ledge.” And so I did.

After walking some more I get on a bridge spanning a large gorge. Oops! The bridge has a gap in it. Not to worry – a new sentence appeared, “Press X to jump.” 
And so on.

The point being that I was given the necessary “how to” instruction at the moment I needed to learn it and use it.

Imagine if the game had, instead, a multi-screen tutorial that taught me ALL of the controls in one fell swoop. I would have to sit through an exhaustive series of what to press on my controller to get Indiana Jones to do everything I may need at some point in the future. Chances are, however, I would forget what to do at some critical point because of the information dump.

However, when I take a web-based training program I am subjected to an initial lesson that includes all the information on all the buttons, navigation, mouseovers, etc. I will encounter throughout the training. Never mind that I won’t encounter some or many of these features right away. But because I got this info dump at the very beginning, I will likely forget what to do three lessons later when I come upon some feature that I hadn’t needed to use until then.

Take a cue from good game design … introduce a feature to the user at the exact moment she must first use it. Make it simple and direct – a single sentence suffices. And then allow her to use that feature for a short while before introducing the next feature.

This principle doesn’t require any new technology or tool or system. And we could easily incorporate this into our work right now.

links for 2009-03-20

• How Do I Import Google Reader, Delicious, and Other Services Into Facebook? | Stay N' Alive
  With the new Facebook home page design, the visibility of all my updates is making other people aware that I import my Google Reader, Delicious, and other activity into Facebook
  (tags: tools tips facebook)
• 26 Learning Games to Change the World | Mission to Learn
  (tags: learning games)
• Mobile Presentations « e-Learning Stuff
  Slideshare announced a mobile version of their website.
  (tags: tools slideshare mobile mobilelearning)

links for 2009-03-18

• What I Know About Twitter | Technologizer
  (tags: tips ple twitter)

links for 2009-03-17

• The Mobile Learning Dilemma (and a few cool tools) « Mr Robbo – The P.E Geek
  (tags: web2.0 learning2.0 mobilelearning)
• Another reason elearning is boring: Too much basic information » Making Change
  (tags: eLearning design)
• mLearning Lessons Learned « eLearning Weekly
  (tags: mobilelearning)
• Starting Slowly with mLearning « eLearning Weekly
  some lessons learned regarding mobile learning
  (tags: mobilelearning)
• Engaging with the New eLearning, from Adobe Systems – White Papers, Webcasts and Case Studies – ZDNet
  Read this Adobe paper for 12 strategies to engage and retain learners through compelling online experiences. By Allison Rossett and Antonia Chan. (Requires free registration through ZDNet)
  (tags: eLearning)

Do companies TRULY embrace social learning – yes and no

@jentolbert tweeted, “curious, do you think companies are TRULY embracing social learning?”
I don’t think I can limit my reply to 140 characters … except to brusquely say “yes and no” or “perhaps, it depends.”
So, let the blogging begin.
I would imagine that there are, frankly, quite a few companies that use social media in some way for learning … most likely for informal learning. (Interesting! Elliott Masie just launched a survey on this very topic – perhaps we’ll get a good dataset if enough company reps respond.)

Part of the problem is how one may define social media in the first place. I’ve had conversations where folks assert it as just social networks, like of the Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace ilk. Other folks include other web2.0 things like blogs, wikis, podcasting, etc.
Then I can see several individuals talking ad-infinitum about what is meant by “TRULY embracing” … Does it mean adopting the technology to enable social learning? Or perhaps it means that a group in the organization has taken on the mantle of “social learning champions” who promote it every chance they can. Or maybe it means that the organization’s culture has been transformed in some way.

So, one can answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question of whether a company truly embraces social learning depending on how one defines things.

What is your take?
 
 

links for 2009-03-08

• Clark Aldrich's Style Guide for Serious Games and Simulations: Virtual Worlds, Games, and Simulations: The Challenges of the Next Five Years
  Across my own client base, there are increasing questions about how the next five or so years (the extent of any quasi-predictable planning horizon) will play out. Here are some thoughts on the peeling away of the "post-literacy" onion
  (tags: learning virtualworlds)

links for 2009-03-06

• eLearning Roadtrip: Mobile learning at last?
  The degree to which an enterprise is willing to support its mobile stakeholders’ needs will be one of the most significant factors in determining whether or not mobile learning will provide a viable solution for serving its distributed performance support and professional development needs.
  (tags: mobilelearning)

Chicken Little – Facebook, Myspace and Games ‘Infantalising’ Our Minds

(I hesitated to post this because I thought it might be overly snippy and snarky … but after re-reading the Guardian’s article and thinking about what Lady Greenfield had to say, I decided to go ahead and post – snarkiness and all. Sometimes I just have to vent.)

UGH! Read Anthony D Williams’ post and decided to follow the link to the Guardian where Susan Greenfield moans and groans about games, social media and basically anything digital.
I understand that The Guardian is not a science journal nor technical, peer-reviewed publication … so it would be unreasonable for me to demand that they include the data sources for Greenfield’s assertions. (Although a link to her research would be more than appropriate – but no dice)

I also wish that the Guardian had a warning underneath the article’s title … Warning – Reading these Assertions and Drinking a Beverage Will Result in Spewing Said Liquid from Your Mouth, Potentially Damaging any Computer Equipment that Is Nearby

“It might be helpful to investigate whether the near total submersion
of our culture in screen technologies over the last decade might in
some way be linked to the threefold increase over this period in
prescriptions for methylphenidate, the drug prescribed for
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.”

Wow! So many “if’s” and “might’s” and “might be’s” … Does she really expect to be taken seriously? Alas, I think so. And alas, I think there will be plenty of folks who will be happy to listen to Lady Chicken Little Greenfield.

That she is “an expert” – at least being degreed and working as a professor – may be just the thing for others to jump on this bandwagon without really considering whether there’s a single bit of evidence to back up the assertions.
After all, it wasn’t too terribly long ago that an army of experts were paraded in front of the US Congress and claimed that listening to Judas Priest or Twisted Sister would lead young people to commit acts of violence, perhaps even to commit suicide.

And some of this just seems such nonsense (my comments in bold here):

She also warned against “a much more marked preference for the
here-and-now, where the immediacy of an experience trumps any regard
for the consequences. After all, whenever you play a computer game, you
can always just play it again; everything you do is reversible.(Whoah there! I remember yelling “do over” as a kid when playing so many games – non digital ones at that! Does she really mean that the ability to repeat and do over is reserved only for the current crop of games?)

The emphasis is on the thrill of the moment, the buzz of rescuing the
princess in the game.
(This sentence just doesn’t follow from the previous one. If games allow for quick, easy ‘do overs’ then the emphasis is on being able to approach puzzles and problems from several or many differenat approaches.
However, taking this sentence at face value … this can be said of all games whether digital or not …)

No care is given for the princess herself, for
the content or for any long-term significance, because there is none.
(Huh?!? So, rescuing the princess could never translate into care for the princess … I’m confused)

This type of activity, a disregard for consequence, can be compared
with the thrill of compulsive gambling or compulsive eating.

Wow! This last sentence is a huge leap and totally unsupported. Her argument seems to be:
Games allow you to go back and repeat (or even be played over again)
This repeatability only emphasizes instant gratification
Repeatibility also reinforces a disregard for consequences
Therefore this engenders compulsive and addictive behaviors

I would have thought that being able to repeat and do-over in a game is precisely a result of the consequences of my actions … “that choice didn’t work – in fact, I died. Hmmmm – let me try this instead to beat this level”

It is just so clear that Greenfield does not get it. That she’s going to have her bevy of followers and folks parroting her concerns is appalling. I’m hoping that this isn’t the case. She may have good intentions – but the amount of misinformation, logical leaps of fancy, and outright nonsense makes me cringe.

links for 2009-03-05

• What will the 'Net' generation bring?
  Two new books have substantially changed my perspective on Generation Y and the contribution they are making to the business world
  (tags: workliteracy GenY)

Invited to a Game-Based Learning/Virtual World workgroup

Cool! A small workgroup has been created to explore game-based learning and the use of virtual worlds for learning. They’ve invited me to join them.
I hope that this is more than just “exploring” … that we get to tackle some work that will be shown and used by our clients.

The first meeting’s agenda worries me a little bit … it mentions the use of a virtual world technology (specifically, Second Life) as though it is a gaming platform. I’ve written about Second Life and some of my concerns in previous posts.

Update: After discussing the concern of biting off more than could be chewed if we included SL, the group has decided to not include virtual worlds in our research work. Hooray!

Update again: Due to the looming integration as a result of the merger, the workgroup is put on hold.
Oh well … here’s hoping that we can be resurrected soon.