AICC Subcommittee Working Group Meeting
Meeting Minutes
June 14-18th ,  2004
SanFransisco, California USA

Monday, June 14

Reduce Integration Time by Moving HACP from the Client to the Content Server: Jim Bishop PLAN THREE.

Jim provided a presentation on a tool for conversion of LAN-based content to web based. This puts the content on the servers instead of the LAN to provide a faster approach to integration.

Jim discussed the tools available for supporting AICC protocols. He discussed the protocols (HACP and API) and the benefits. HACP provides more control; API is easy to implement and neutral. Jim also discussed the challenges of the protocols. HACP challenge is that it is hard for non-technical developers. API challenge is that there are cross-domain issues.

PLAN THREE has a hybrid approach that they implemented for a client. Their product puts a layer between the content and the LMS. It has for content vendors an AICC HANDLER, a custom handler that PLAN THREE developed. The content communicates with the handler. The handler passes query string data to the AICC CATCHER. The AICC CATCHER takes data, interprets the data, and forms HACP responses (AICC business layer). Jim discussed the benefits of the hybrid approach: ease of content updates, cross-domain challenges disappear, can use the best parts of the API, reduces implementation duration.

Previously, if you want to deal with the cross-domain issues would need to implement on client. How server does the work. Currently this implementation is deployed by a single client who has a large client base.

CMI Working Group/Independent Test Lab: Bill McDonald, Alteon Training (Boeing Commercial Airplanes)

Bill discussed CMI Specification Draft 14 issues:
1. Rollup language for completion requirements (firing rules)
2. Order of precedence for logic operators
3. ASCII definition (ISO-8859-x)
4. INI delimiter restrictions on string values for API to ensure HACP/FILE data compatibility and fixes a potential Offline CMI Communication specification issue.

Bill requested feedback on the INI delimiter restrictions on string values. Jack said the major limitation is reporting out string values with square brackets. Bill said the other limitation is leading and training white space and carriage returns in the strings. Bill asked if the LMS developer can live with this restriction.

Need a new data type or modify existing data type for handling CORE VENDOR, etc to include an "=". Bill recommended modification of INI_CMT_SAFE to include "=".

Question asked about the impact on future work in ADL SCORM/IEE convergence. Jack stated that future work will be additional bindings and have no impact as a result of this work.

AI -Bill McDonald. Document will be put out for review for 3 weeks. Comments will be accepted until July 19th. There will be an email vote the week of July 26th. Bill will fold in comments and will coordinate with Scott to end out for the vote

Bill described the function of the AICC test lab briefly. Bill will update the test suite to add a minimum set of tests for the API. Bill calls this a band-aid. Bill raised issues for creation of a new test suite; how much do we need to spend and how long will it take. Guy Tourigny, LinkSys is interested in test suite development.

AI - Jack Hyde, Bill McDonald, Guy Tourigny, Jim Bishop, Anne Montgomery will work together to formulate a Request for Information on the development of a new AICC Test Suite. The initial draft of the RFI should be done by October for email review.

Specification for Offline CMI Communication: Jack Hyde, AICC

Jack explained the concept of the Offline CMI Communication. Jack reviewed the changes to the documentation. Jack explained the specification reorganization.

Bill proposed additional language about the scope (minimum) of an offline CMI. Need to define the minimum requirements for the bucket concept. Bill continues to stress the need for a conformance statements; a better approach would be to just scope for the messaging approach and leave the rest as out of the scope of the specification. Bill also suggested formulating "out-of-scope" statements.

Jack provided the next steps. Create an AGR, send out CMI009and AGR for online approval, provide one month for feedback, incorporate the feedback, initiate a vote. If show stoppers appear, discuss in telecons or future meetings.

Discussion on where the synchronization is to take place. Recommendation to have the synchronization from the desktop when the student logs on and presses a button instead of the LMS doing it. This is done at the desktop level. Downside of current specification is the assumption that there is an HTTP server on the desktop and the LMS initiates the communication. Lenny Greenberg recommends that there is a different paradigm that does the synchronization from the desktop and does not require an HTTP server on the desktop.

AI: Jack needs to put together an architectural diagram(s) from Section 3 of the specification or generalize the specification in the area of content and/or LMS synchronization. The specification has a specific implementation dependent design and may need to be more general. Tom King recommended that this may not be required in this document and just some definition of requirements that are expected of the LMS communicating with an offline CMI component.

AI: Lenny Greenberg will provide comments on section 3 with suggestions for generalizing the concept for how to synchronize.

AI: Jack change Appendix A to refer to a different document or Appendix A becomes it own document. Tom King recommends that a separate course package document that this document and the PENS document points to.

AI: Bill recommends changing HOCP to a OCP to remove any possible confusion with HACP.

AICC Executive Committee Meeting

An AICC Executive Committee Meeting and Strategic Planning session occurred Monday evening. The following items were discussed:

Finance: There was no official finance report but Scott Bergstrom indicated the Finances were OK but did not have time to get out a current finance report.

Elections and Executive Committee: The executive committee extended the term for the current chairman and executive committee to January 2006. This was due to inability to do the necessary planning during the Bangkok meeting. In the January 2005 meeting the executive committee will address the current vacancies caused by the departures of Tyde Richards, IBM and Steve Smith, Rockwell Collins.

Future Meetings: The following are the venues and dates for the future AICC meetings:
Bangkok (hosted by Thai Airlines): October 4-8, 2004
Miami, Florida (Miami Alteon Training Center): January 31 - February 4, 2005
Helsinki, Finland (hosted by Finnair): June 27 - July 1, 2005
Washington DC (hosted by FAA and Plateau): September 26 - 30, 2005
San Antonio, TX (hosted by AICC): January 2006
AI: Possible presentations for meeting in Miami: Ed Faith/Ray Butler, UPS; Anita Kilgore, TwoBrillant

BANGKOK Meeting Planning: The following is a tentative agenda for the AICC meeting in Bangkok:
Monday: Workshop ALIC : Japanese standardization organism
Generating AICC compliant content with Flash
AICC CMI certification and use of the AICC test suite
Tuesday: AICC presentation: purpose, roles, achievements, etc.
Far East vendor's presentations
Wednesday: Airlines presentations
Open discussion on themes such as airline utilization of manufacturer training products, use of intranet, use of internet, instructor %CBT and %training devices
Thursday: Subcommittee reports
AICC/SCORM convergence
The meeting will only be 4 days allowing Friday as the day to fly back.

AI: Anne should ask ALIC to make the same presentation in Bangkok as they made at the ISO meeting in Montreal.
AI: Anne: For Vendor Day in Bangkok: Contact Plateau, Macromedia, etc. for possible presentations by their Pacific Rim reps. Contact Indian companies (e.g. "Sankhya Infotech Ltd." <n.sridhar@sankhyainfotech.com>) for possible presentations. Contact Harbinger for a presentation on their offline player.

AICC Strategic Planning Meeting
Strategic Planning Discussion Topics included:
* Subcommittees Structure
* Meeting Frequency and Location
* Current AICC Initiatives
* Various topics
* Standards groups

Subcommittees Structure: Subcommittee structure was reviewed and no changes were recommended. It was decided that the PENS initiative should be included in Training Infrastructure Subcommittee

Meeting Frequency and Location: The executive committee agreed that 3 meetings per year were OK and discussed the improvements to the conduct of meetings. It was suggested that Monday afternoon be used for additional working group sessions. To facilitate meeting work, it was suggested to use Breeze meeting to accomplish work between meeting.

Current AICC Initiatives: The following current AICC initiatives were reviewed:
* CMI Specification / CMI Test Suite
* ADL-SCORM Convergence
* Checklist for Purchasing Vendor Products
* PENS - Vendor Working Group on Content Deployment
* Smart Graphics Specification / Simulation Interoperability
* Reusable Object Working Group
* Metadata for Aviation Industry
The group agreed to continue the current initiatives but also agreed to not start any new initiatives until a current initative was competed. The group discussed various topics of interest which may be undertaken in the future including:
* Develop an XML representation for course structure
* Work around usability, engagement of learner/end user
* Fix themes for vendor presentations, with synopsis previews
* Schedule telecons to adjust agenda
* Develop prototypes for new projects (e.g. off line CMI)
* Collect information about non compliance problems from LMS or content providers
* Evolution of the test suite
* Web services
* Web site improvement (resource pb)
* Communication development

Finally AICC participation in standards groups and standards efforts was discussed. It was agreed that AICC continue the effort for AICC/SCORM convergence, the participation in IEEE, and the participation in ISO SC 36

AICC CMI - ADL SCORM Convergence Meeting

Robby Robsen convened the AICC CMI/ADL SCORM Convergence meeting. The meeting agenda includes:

* Review of Minutes from Seattle
* Survey Status (Ed)
* Differences Document (Jack)
* IEEE Working Group (Robby for Tyde)
* Position Paper (Tom)
* Roadmap (Robby for Philip)
* Scoping of this effort (Anne)
* Next steps (Anne / Robby)

Robby reviewed the notes and action items from the Seattle Meeting.

Survey Status
Ed Cohen discussed his development of a survey to find out the following:
* What and where are the problems having two standards?
* Is there a compelling reason to merge the two standards?
* Is it the data model or some other reason for choosing a standard?
Ed presented the initial survey questions, characterized the survey as highly technical, discussed his view of the intended audience and the various groups/organization who would get the survey. Robby said the survey should be sent to organizations and people who are using LMS's, content creaters, content deliverers, content purchasers, LMS developers/vendors. Previous surveys focused on a particular type of individual; this survey expands the audience.
* What and where are the problems having two standards?
* Is there a compelling reason to merge the two standards?
* Is it the data model or some other reason for choosing a standard?
Ed requested that the group review the survey keeping the questions and audience in mind. Ed wants to distribute the survey in the following manner:
* as part of training specific industry meetings
* via an email link to members of conferences asking to fill out the survey and return the results
Robby's notes: The group should review and edit the survey questions (and maybe Heather also). The group talked about distributing as part of training industry specific meetings (e.g. Dublin meeing possibly). This could also be posted on the AICC web site.

Differences Document
Jack will create a comprehensive difference document defining the differences between the AICC CMI Specification and SCORM 2004 in the areas of RTE, CAM, SN. Jack will, however, postpone the comprehensive analysis until AICC CMI v4.0 is released (July 19-26 time frame).

IEEE CMI WG
Robby discussed the IEEE CMI WG work. The group has committed to a presenation in September using Breeze (in conjunction with the IEEE meeting in Dublin?). The group is working on web services as an alternative to XML for course structure. This is a result of discussions at the AICC CMI - ADL SCORM working group in Seattle. The group is looking at logical models first, bindings second. They are soliciting comments from SC36 on "1484.11.1" (Data Model). Note: ADL is committed to specifications that are based on IEEE standards.




Position Paper
This paper is roadmap on where we are going. This will contain decisions on convergence and why we made these decisions. It should show the timeline for convergence. The goal should look like this
SCORM ---------------------AICC 1st milestone with description of convergence features
SCORM AICC 2nd milestone with description of convergence features
SCORM AICC 3rd milestone with description of convergence features

ADL Roadmap
No change in direction since Seattle. IEEE should be the forum for convergence. Need statement of differences. Plan to come together and a timeline. Work on issues and things to be fixed. Committed to SCORM being based on IEEE standards. Exploring ways to increase resource commitment

Next Stetps
Define a set of achievable concrete steps. Don't Panic. These are the steps discussed:
Survey
* All committee members review survey (Bill email out)
* Survey comments back to Ed in 2 weeks (June 30),
* Ed revises survey by July 15. Ed makes decision if we need a telecon on or before July 15 to resolve difference in Survey.
* Survey out - July 31. Send out to a test group (group for original survey); Ed to decide who is test group
* Review results and determine if ready for broad distribution.
* Broad distribution by August 31. Survey continues to be sent out. Also distribute the survey at the Bangkok (AICC) meeting
* Report results of first distribution by Oct 15.
* Distribute survey at TechLearn in November
* Combine results of TechLearn with AICC Bangkok results and original survey results. Report to committee at next convergence meeting in November.

Differences Document
* In conjunction with survey activities. Jack will start work on differences document starting July when Version 4 of AICC spec.
* Differences spec ready for review Sept. 30.
* Comments back to Jack Oct. 15.
* Publish by year end.
* Review process for differences document: review by group internally, determine the larger audience and send out for larger review.

Other Tasks
* Telecons as needed (Breeze a cons) for both survey and differences document. Jack and/or Ed to setup as needed.
* Attempt a face-to-face meeting in early November in Seattle. Bill to get out meeting room and hotel information. (use same arrangements as last meeting)
* Tom's position paper to user community. (??)
* Request a commitment from AICC to work toward a web services model that basis for the IEEE web services model.

Tuesday, June 15

Bernard Bouyt, AICC chairman welcomed the group and reviewed the AICC Executive Committee meeting and the AICC Strategic Planning meeting.

Tom Hale, General Manager Macromedia, gave a brief welcoming speech.

Package Exchange Notification Services (PENS) - Updates on Vendor Working Group on Content Deployment: Tom King, Macromedia; Eric Shepard, Questionmark; Lenny Greenberg, Pathlore; Ed Cohen, Plateau

Tom described the PENS specification. He explained the origin of PENS. The Fisher space Pen developed to write in zero gravity, very complex and expensive. The Russians solved the problems by using a pencil. This was the origin of the word PENS. The idea was to implement a simple solution to a complex problem.

Many document, content, and LMS vendors contributed ideas for the specification. Tom reviewed the need for the standard including the need to check content back out and the need to contribute content for deployment. Tom briefly described the PENS model which includes the following steps.: transfer content somewhere (FTP etc), issue a pickup request (LMS, LCMS), trigger a process driven by the LMS/LCMS to acknowledge and issue a receipt and initiate a workflow, retrieve package and issue alerts (pickup, approval), and complete the work flow and make the content available.

Tom discuss the nuts and blots of specification and the defining goals: Keep it simple, Concentrate on FTP but allow evolution to emerging standards.

Tom, Eric, and Lenny all gave demonstrations of the PENS concept. Tom published content to a Pathlore server. Provides an expiration date to tell server when it is ok to remove. Pathlore server sends message that completed packaging and in the content catalog.

Eric Shepard briefly explained the Questionmark product, discussed the creation delivery, and reporting of tests/quizzes, etc and the number of installed servers. Problem for questionmark was how to inform LMS when new test version. Created a content packager. Was a logical step to move to a standard such as PENS. Eric demonstrated packaging assessments using the Questionmark Content Packager. He then showed updating of the assessments and insertion into a Pathlore course catalog.

Next Lenny Greenberg showed Pathlore LMS as a receiver of PENS packages. Lenny described the PENS process from the viewpoint of the Pathlore LMS. Lenny said that different LMS may have different workflow models. Each LMS should have their own implementation workflow rules: approval, review, deployment, ids and password. Lenny described a complex offline deployment. Lenny said to start simple, use a real world problem, and build on successes.

Ed provided Plateau observations and comments. Big surprise was a scenario with external content developers and have a way to test inside company. Have the process send content into the company, company tests, and company sends results back to external developers. Plateau major decisions: PENS service needs to be LMS version independent (update PENS service without update LMS and forcing customers to install new LMS version). Let engineers work with developing specification and provide inputs and comments. Specification well received by engineering staff. Ed discussed the Plateau PENS plan to provide pilot implementations with customers. Plateau plans to bring this to market in about 6 months.

Tom discussed the next steps. AICC considerations include: need to define a package format including AICC Course Interchange files, embedded or hosted content options, metadata (AICC PENS profile). May need other commands for discovery (HTTP, FTP, QTI), update/remove a package. Where is the specification developed and how and when.

Question: Does this concept allow for hundreds of files and thousands of graphics? Tom said zip files created so no size restrictions. Can you get an ID in addition with a manifest? Tom said yes but need to elaborate on with human readable.

Tom reiterated how helpful it is to have a technical writer and weekly/monthly telecons. AICC can provide the openness. AICC members to beta-test the specification to see that it saves money and time. Need ideas for workflows. The PENS specification shall be posted on the AICC website. Will add the email list at the end of the document.

AI: Ed Cohen will proceed with PENS as part of Training Infrastructure working group, will create as a draft white paper, use the current PENS email reflector for review of the document..

AI: Bill McDonald will post the PENS specification of the AICC website.

AICC CMI - ADL SCORM Convergence Update and ISO Meeting Update: Jack Hyde, AICC
Jack discussed the status of AICC CMI -ADL Convergence effort and meeting in Seattle. Jack presented the AICC philosophy of change and collaries to that philosophy such as don't change existing functions, don't change names, don't change data formants, you may add functions, you may add names, you may add data formats, you may supply alternatives but do not make them mandatory.

The results of the AICC approach is that LMS's will need to change but most existing content will not have to change. New functionality will be available for new content.

ADL Philosophy/Direction was discussed. ADL position is it is expensive to support 2 specs that overlap. ADL not planning on adding new features or capabilities to SCORM 2004. Migrattion tools and techniques will be available to assist with 1.2 legacy content. The SCORM audience is big and growing bigger. ADL is will to adopt IEE standards. The movement by ADL toward convergence but may require both AICC and ADL to participate in new IEEE standards.

Jack discussed the IEEE philosophy which is IEEE has a roadmap that can lead to convergence. Jack discussed the IEEE roadmap and priorities.

AI: Jack to give a presentation at Bangkok meeting on the IEEE communication model and XML binding.

AI: Bill post Jack's AICC CMI -ADL differences document.

Jack presented the technical differences between the AICC CMI specification and the SCORM 2004 specification. . Jack's the presentation has a synopsis of the difference (see meeting presentations). The differences document can also be found on the AICC website with the meeting presentations. Jack stressed the RTE (Run Time Environment), CAM (Content Aggregation Model), and SN (Sequencing and Navigation Model).

Jack provided communication convergence ideas. Ed Cohen recommended to concentrate on points of pain for users. Ed said users are having problems making AICC and SCORM certified content working in different environments. This is a point of pain. AICC should try to solve the problems that industry has to implement the specs. This should be the basis of and influence the convergence efforts. Now both existing specs are imperfect and need to be fixed - should use these as the areas to concentrate on for convergence

Tom King made the recommendation to have this meeting to provide a roadmap and time table as a plan for future convergence. Bill McDonald said there needs to be a significant chunk of information available from IEEE to make it worthwhile to implement. Bulk of pain points are implementation decisions not data model, need to consider this. Also because IEEE is working at its own pace, the roadmap for convergence should be based on IEEE milestones not specific dates.

Synopsis of Jack's recommendations (see presentation for complete description): AICC Augments IEEE data model and recommends the IEEE API. AICC defines a finding. AICC should also wait for the IEEE solution and AICC should develop an XML structure description that supports all current features plus some new capabilities for packaging plus expansion slots for metadata and possibly sequencing. For metadata the SCORM metadata will probably be a subset of the AICC metadata (based on current AICC work). For Packaging, Jack recommends AICC develop a packaging spec based on XML course structure and Offline CMI or AICC wait for IEEE to develop a spec.

Final thoughts: Development of a roadmap based on the results of the convergence meeting that took place yesterday needs to be developed.

AI: Jack will lead the AICC team that will create a position paper to include results of current discussions and define AICC priorities

Checklist for Purchasing Vendor Products: Mike Sharp, Honeywell
Mike reviewed the concepts and purpose of the Purchasing Vendor Product Checklist. The checklist is included in the AICC presentation material and is also available on the website. Mike then reviewed the items in the checklist. Checklist provides a framework highlighting areas to consider and augment when procuring content and systems.

AI: Anne and Mike make this an official AICC document and create an AGR to reference this document. Send out the document and AGR for review and approval. Add acronyms referred to in the document to the acronym list at the end of the document

Open Standards for 3D Technologies: Connell Gallagher, ParallelGraphics & James Grant, Boeing
James Grant introduced Connell Gallagher from Parallel Graphics, the tool used at Boeing for tech manuals and training graphics. Connell reviewed the open web3D standards and proprietary standards. He explained the differences between ISO, Semi-Open, and Proprietary graphics formats. Connell discussed the X3D graphics and X3D profiles, U3D (the jpeg of 3D) goals and functions and rendering capabilities. Connell then discussed how to use the technology to integrate 3D into maintenance manuals. Taken CATIA data, optimized, and tagged it to be controlled by a page in the tech manual. Connell discussed considerations of using this technology in a manual and the need not to replace the manual as the focus of the user's attention.

In maintenance manual need to communicate step-by-step procedures; however, in the training environment you want to let mistakes be made and provide feedback. Connell discussed how to re-use open 3D content and the value of using 3D (realism, interactivity increase retention levels and reduce amount of training). The ISO standard for 3D allows for delivery across the internet. Can also reuse CAD data.

Parallel Graphics concentrates on open standards to reuse CAD data, optimize for web, no re-engineering, use of standard PC's, minimize manual intervention, and automatic generation of procedures. Need to easily maintain and update the thousands of procedures needed. Connell explained the system architecture. Data is delivered as VRML wrapped in XML. In tech manual use same data with different wrapper.

Connell then demonstrated the tool. Parallel Graphics uses a set of simple English to define a set of properties for use in 3D graphics, e.g., the concept of unscrew or remove (set the viewpoint, transform the object). If the task was tagged in a certain way such as remove the part number xxx, could generate the the content to match the tag.

ISO Update: Jack Hyde, AICC
Jack reviewed the ISO structure, discussed the SC36 committee and the AICC relationship to SC36 and the role of the AICC liaison role. Jack discussed the ISO meeting agenda and work of the sessions (see his presentation for specifics).

AI: Anne or Jack ask ALIC to make the same presentation at the Bangkok seminar as they made at the Montreal ISO meeting.

At the end of the presentation, Jack asked if he should continue to participate. Bernard asked that he participate at the next meeting in Dublin, Ireland.

Innovations in Maintenance Training at NWA: Bruce DeNise, NWA
Bruce shows the timeline for acquisition of an LMS, what they did and how they did it. They selected Plateau; first live course on 3/15.

Bruce discussed the Tech Ops training challenges. Maintenance training is a lot more complex than flight training. For example, DC-9s are still in the fleet. Flying and flying training has remained much the same over the life of the aircraft; however, there are many maintenance training challenges. Bruce discussed how training was managed before the LMS was introduced. Bruce discussed the strategy to justify an LMS and how the LMS streamlined the processes and training. The basis of streamlined training and training quality is the Training Quality Report, detailing training accomplishments, costs, and quality. Bruce discussed the LMS implementation with Plateau acting as a consultant. Bruce showed the LMS architecture. Bruce discussed his in-work projects and what is next.

Wednesday, June 16

Multi-Standard Publishing: Combining Metadata Extraction with Course Packaging: Anita Kilgore, TwoBrillant & Guy Tourigny, LinkSys
Standards based e-learning relies on metadata but there is no single way to mange metadata - multiple courses, multiple systems. The developers of FlightByte searched for a tool to easily manage metadata. There are some existing tools, content management systems force you into a particular box. To solve this problem, they created the FlightByte MetaData Tool to facilitate multi-standard deployment and conversion. This tool unifies standards course management by import/export of existing metadata and course structures, validates metadata and course packages. The tool packages courses for deployment into standards systems. FlightByte can convert metadata and course structure from one standard to another, i.e., SCORM to AICC, SCORM 1.1 to SCORM 1.2. SCORM 2004 conversions are currently under development. FlightByte addresses key needs in one tool using easy creation and management. The tool developers are looking for beta-test sites; if interested contact Guy or Anita.


Macromedia e-Learning & Breeze Live: Tom Person, Macromedia
Overview of Macromedia e-learning strategy and demonstration of Breeze Live technology for synchronous training, collaboration, and meetings

Tom showed how you can control the Breeze presentation via a Toshiba wireless. Breeze is based on Flash technology. Breeze Presentation, Breeze Training, and Breeze Live are the components of a robust toolset for on-line meetings, seminars, and presentations. The Breeze presenter workstation needs to be on the latest version of Flash. Breeze uses the Flash engine. There is an instant on, instant enter. Breeze is a server tool solution. Tom King has folks from Netherlands and Australia signed in and panned the AICC meeting room to show them who was attending. Breeze has powerful tools for application sharing.

Tom King demonstrated the report capabilities - survey reports, participant data, etc. Tom discussed the powerful search capabilities to find references in recording, slides, speaker notes and access the information.

Tom discussed the Breeze architecture. Everything done using Breeze is based on Powerpoint and is server based. Breeze presenters take ppt slides and publish to the Breeze server. In Breeze every ppt slide (with content, audio, video) becomes a Flash movie. Breeze provides additional tools to augment the presentation with questions. With voice over IP, the upper limit of Breeze participants is about 200-300. More can attend a Breeze meeting if presentation is more limited

Use of Flash/XML/SQL for a Universal Database for Question Pools: Neil Cramer, NWA
Neil discussed the evolution of training development at NWA. NWA started using WICAT but started using Authorware when it initially came out. NWA started using Pathware as the 1st LMS. About 5 years ago NWA started using Flash as an authoring tool. Then they moved to Learning Space LMS. Next they moved to Flash MX and now they are looking at Flash MX 2004 with XML and SQL.

NWA was the 1st airline to work with the FAA to do online testing. It was an authorware based tool.
Universal Question Data Base: Neil explained the use of his universal question data base within the context for FAA requirements. Neil showed the types of question templates and the interface to the graphics department requesting specific graphic to be created or an existing graphic. Neil hopes to build a home grown content management system based on this work.

Where Do We Go Next: Courses are broken into Lessons and Modules. LMS AU is a module. LMS passes information on topics and sections in a Flash Navigation shell. This was done in a hard-coded manner. Now NWA uses XML in an application called CourseBuilder to create the course structure. This provides multiple delivery outputs: LMS mode, side training, CD-ROM, or disconnected. Neil demonstrated the CourseBuilder tool.

NWA has a word template that is a scripting tool for storyboard, CBT text, and audio script. This became the basis of a tool called ScriptBuilder using XML. This could incorporate CourseBuilder into the scripting tool and could become a content management system. Neil described the ScriptBuilder architecture and future directions.


Flash MX 2004: Interactivity and Video: Mike Downey, Macromedia Flash Product Manager
How video is incorporated with Flash for more effective & efficient e-learning including performance and productivity enhancements in the recent update, and provide your feedback to the Flash team.

Tom gave an overview of what would be discussed including what is new in the Flash world, ask what audience would like to be done in the authoring tool, and discuss what is being done in Flash video.

Tom asked the audience "How is Flash working for you?" Bill asked about a Flash complier to help building content. Tom gave some feedback on providing a standalone compiler for Flash. There is some work in this area and a contact point is mesh@macromedia.com for information on this which uses 2004.

Tom gave an update on what is new in Flash. Flash Updater "Ellipsis" scheduled for this summer and is mainly a bug fixer. It has dramatic performance and stability improvements. Also a major documentation overhaul. Flash Video Streaming Service set up for posting video streaming. Tom gave some information on Flash player penetration statistics.

Flash Product Roadmap: Interviewing customers on how using Flash. Looking at really innovative design capabilities in next version of play runtime bitmap rendering, lighting effects with no increase in file size and no decrease in performance. Plan on providing a new text rendering engines and work going on in workflow and usability.


Authorware 7 & Beyond: Tom Person, Macromedia
New features in Authorware 7 can make you more productive including an overview of the features and functionality in the new beta Authorware web player.

Tom asked the number of attendees using Authorware 7 and asked if there were problems. Neil thinks there opportunities for product convergence that Macromedia is not taking advantage of. Tom and Tom King talked a little about the continuum and philosophy of the Macromedia product set. Tom Person said there would be an Authorware 8. Mike Andersen said the Navy will not allow the Authorware plugin on the Navy network (NMCI) after February but will allow learning centers. Mike said the Flash player would be allowed. Kris Rockwell thinks Authorware is a quick prototyping tool and is much easier/faster than Flash. Macromedia is attempting to provide contextual examples for Authorware features. Authorware has an LMS emulator to test content without an LMS.

Tom demonstrated RoboDemo. RoboDemo is a tool that allows you to create software simulations by capturing what is on the screen.

Flex: Rich, Responsive Interfaces for Enterprise Applications on the Web: Jonathan Wall, Macromedia
New features in Authorware 7 that can increase productivity including an overview of the features and functionality in the new beta Authorware web player.

Jonathan talked about the evolution of experiences using a computer. Initially mainframe based applications with text-based user interfaces using dumb terminals - little interactivity. Client-server technology provided a richer user experience but limited in number of people that can use it. With the advent of the web, lots of people can access application but with HTML the richness of the applications have taken a step backward.

Developers like the web for distribution but lack the ability to create rich user experiences. Now we are at the beginning of the next generation of internet applications. These are called Rich Internet Applications (RIA). The entire application on the client provides less waiting, bandwidth, server load. These RIAs are starting to emerge using the processing power of the client.

Jonathan discussed the challenges of building RIAs. He discussed areas where traditional web applications fall short: multi-step processing (e.g., buying on the web), client-side processing, direct manipulation. All these applications contain many points requiring screen refresh (accessing server to refresh displays). Jonathan show and example of a direct manipulation with processing running on the client. This could be applied to almost anything with this paradigm. Delivering the experiences using the Flash client.

Flex is a new technology that allows you to build these applications. With Flex you buy a Flex Server license (per CPU). It is not a tool. With this you get the ability to build applications in a regenerative manner. Use this in place of Flash using tools like XML and JavaScripit. This is aimed at developers who do not use Flash. The architecture is fuilt for use by application development teams and include many large development tools like CM checkin/out. Flex works in a services-oriented architecture. Flex generates and delivers a user interface to data and logic. Flex creates a client service that runs on the client and connects with server to handle data.

Flex runs on top of Java servers but working on a Net implementation (currently beta). Flex has 2 things - run time services and application frame-work. Flex provides a code-based development approach. Flex uses MXML and Action Script (same as inside Flash authoring environment) with pre-built components that make up the Class Library. Flex provides open tooling so developers do not have to change editors they use now.

Rich Internet Applications (RIA) are the next generation of computing. Flex is aimed at users who do not use Flash. This will not make Flash developers go away but will augment the tool box.

Flex 1.0 release out for 3 months. Next release 1.5 and Brady and .Net beta-release out and can be used if requested.


Simulation-Based Training using Flash (via Breeze): Jonathan Kaye, Amethyst Research LLC
Jonathan has done several presentations using Breeze on how to build Flash Simulations. Several AICC meeting attendees used Breeze to interact with simulations that Jonathan used to demonstrate his presentation. Jonathan stressed that effective instruction means more than instrument reproduction. Instrumentation is designed for usability not learnability. At this point several AICC members were a ble to engage the simulation dials on their own displays.

Jonathan discussed building simulations properly and emphasized that for medium to complex interactivity the developer should employ best practice software design methodologies such as UML. Jonathan demonstrated the use of a component library and each of the AICC attendees were able to manipulate then on their individual Breeze sessions. He emphasized the usefulness of a component library. He discussed the properties of components. Jack asked if multiple users could manipulate the simulation and have the components show on the others monitor. Neil asked if you could add an instructor to the mix. Jonathan said yes but you would need to add some flash server code (Jonathan called a "pod") to share an event. Next Jonathan discussed customizing components. Designing components efficiently you can get a huge range of behaviors. Jonathan then demonstrated a medium complex example. Jonathan discussed when Flash is not appropriate. Flash is not a be all, end all tool. It may not be appropriate when your application needs 3D, for intensive computations. Jonathan and David Castillo wrote a book Flash MX2004 for Interactive Simulations which contains a lot of interesting material. There will be an online simulation developer class beginning in the Fall 2004 (1 hour each week online). Jonathan has a web site: www.flashsim.com.

In summary, need more progress on designing simulations to meet instructional and business needs.


Thursday, June 17

Corel's Designer Professional: Bob Sima, Corel & Robert MacDonald, Corel
Small niche in Corel is a tech pubs. Intercap founded the CGM profile and built high end 2D illustration tools. Then move into tech pubs. Were purchased by Micrografx which was purchased by Corel. Corel has a high end product called Designer Professional. On viewing side have CGM viewer and SVG viewer. Professional Services helps adapt use of product to the company work flow process.

Bob discussed the value/fit of Corel's product for CBT and the feature set. Illustration tool with high end drawing functionality (built on Corel Draw code base), import of 3D files (Catia), intelligent graphics tool to create vector graphics, raster trace tool, supports over 65 file formats. Designer Professional built on top of Corel Draw but adds the above functionality.

Corel gave a very complete demonstration of importing a CAD (or CATIA) drawing, disassembling the graphic, tagging the components with metadata, and saving the graphic in another format. The demonstration highlighted the extensive capabilities of the tool.

Corel demonstrated its Smart Graphics Studio tool which uses the Designer Pro product and the Smart Graphics sever.

Strategies for the Development and Deployment of Reusable Simulation Objects Michael Sivert, DiSTI & Chris VanDuyne, DiSTI

DIST was targeted toward the simulation industry but the product has moved on the front-end (to develop cockpit systems) and on the other end to incorporate into a variety of training products (from simulators to web apps). Mike gave an overview of DiSTI and DiSTI services. Started as a company to deliver real-time content and delivery over a network (DOD HLA DIS).

DiSTI tools require an OPENGL graphics accelerator which is on many PCs today. Mike discussed his basic concept for a Reusable Simulation Object. The concept of a RSO Container is the vehicle to support the runtime requirements of the RSO. Mike discussed the various delivery options and communication methods for RSOs. These are containers and can take many forms one of which is an Advanced Learning Environment (ALE) which is a virtual classroom layout.

Chris demonstrated the RSO concept. The Tamper Detection Module was demonstrated using Powerpoint. DiSTI is looking to AICC for suggestions in how to interface with training, specifically the smart graphics standards. Chris demonstrated the use of OpenGL editor. Chris and Mike demonstrated various examples of traditional content and SCORM compatible content. For more information visit the DiSTI web site at www.simulation.com.


Airbus Training Central Library .NET migration: Jean Louis Bravo, Airbus
Before his main presentation,Jean Louis Bravo ( JLB) reviewed the goals of the Training Technology Subcommittee: promote new technologies in the training area, mix technologies for better efficiency (e.g., different target environments, compound documents, interactions between applications - simulation <-> CBT), data everlastingness. JLB emphasized some focus points: don't reinvent the wheel, avoid monolithic viewpoints, update technologies. Start small & think big.

Next JLB started his talk on the Training Center Library (TCL) which was started by Airbus in 1999. He discussed the purpose, types of content, object links, object dependencies, object types and relationships,. The current TCL is same architecture as before. Three tier architecture but not same technology for current implementation. Migrate because servers were obsolete and old architecture was difficult to maintain which lead to increased cost. Airbus selected .NET. Selected because components available and well known, intuitive for developers, and rich environment all of which translates to cost reduction as each stage of development and deployment. JLB discussed the main milestones of the TCL migration. Migration period was from April to December 2003. JLB described the migration phases and the programming environment. They used C#f as the best compromise between C++ and VB and ASP.NET for web forms. Next JLB discussed the TCL platform.

A Model for Smart Graphics: Kris Rockwell, Hybrid Leaning; Sabastien Fraysse & Caroline Tonel, I-COMPONENT
Model for Smart Graphics
Kris gave a short talk. He suggested we change the name and tone of the group from Smart Graphic to Smart Object (SMO). Kris has a website addressing this dealing with smart graphics and smart objects. The site is http://smo.hybrid-learning.com. Kris is also starting a mailing list; just contact him to get on the list. Kris has started a white paper which will be on the website. Kris described at a high level his SMO model architecture, smart object configuration, and smart object communication process. Kris described his next steps. If anyone wants to be on the mailing list send a request to kris.rockwell@hybrid-learning.com

I-COMPONENT Presentation
IGraphics Producer produces something similar to what AICC calls smart graphics. Sebastien gave a short overview of the i-Component company. Based on input from customers, I-Component determined the necessity to produce a new graphics model. Looked at the graphics production process, one for static user and one for interactive user. Create a set of basic reusable components called i-components. Sebastien described the i-Graphics producer. After the summary, Sebastien went into more detail and gave a presentation.

After the presentation, Sebastien explained why they use the Flash format. The i-Object model was described in three parts: pure graphic data (static Flash), look and behavior information (XML file), runtime object (Flash movie). The i Panel object is quiet the same architecture. The i-Illustration model is a static image and a configuration file containing the I-Objects. Currently need to use programming to build your I-Panel. They are working on an i-Scenario Composer, a non-programming approach to create I-Panel communication , synchronization, and integration between applications.

The first version of I-Graphics Producer will be available August 2004; the I-Scenario Compsoer should be available October 2004. For more information, there will be an area on the web site in July 2004 wherfe you can get more information, send comments, and get trial versions. Contact information and web site information is at the end of the presentation available using the on-line presentation link.

Review of Changes to Smart Graphics Guidelines document: Jack Hyde, AICC
Jack described the goals of the Smart Graphics initiative. Jack reviewed definitions of terms used in the document. Then Jack reviewed document assumptions. Jack then review some of the components of the data model. Jack provided various PutValue and GetValue examples. Jack then talked about next steps: prototype and modify documentation based on the prototype phase.

Reusable Object Working Group: Bill Shook, Boeing
Bill reviewed the current white paper and incorporated suggestion from the working group.

Thursday, June 17

Corel's Designer Professional: Bob Sima, Corel

Strategies for the Development and Deployment of Reusable Simulation Objects

Airbus Training Central Library .NET migration: Jean Louis Bravo, Airbus

Review of Changes to Smart Graphics Guidelines document: Jack Hyde, AICC

Friday, June 18th

No minutes available for this day.