Week 1 Discussion

Which AI Assistant feature felt most intuitive or useful during the practice activities? Context-aware content suggestions (scene or slide-aware prompts): The Assistant recognizing where you were in a course and proposing content — e.g., suggested slide text, learning objectives, or next steps — felt the most intuitive. It saved time by producing a starting draft that matched the module’s tone and structure, so you could quickly iterate instead of writing from scratch.

What surprised you about how AI handled text or media generation? Quality and speed of first drafts: It was surprising how quickly the Assistant generated coherent, usable lesson text and alt copy that required only light editing. For media, the AI’s ability to suggest image descriptions or recommend visuals fitted to learning objectives was unexpectedly helpful. That said, generative media could be uneven: short, specific prompts gave better image or asset recommendations than vague ones.

Which editing tools (rewrite, shorten, change tone, etc.) did you find most valuable, and why?

• Rewrite and change tone: Very valuable for adapting content to the audience level (e.g., from expert to beginner) and for matching the brand voice.
• Shorten/expand: Useful when converting long subject-matter content into concise on-screen text or extending brief bullet points into full explanations.
• Format/structure suggestions (e.g., converting text into bullet points, learning objectives, or quiz questions): These saved time by turning narrative into instructional elements. Overall, these tools accelerated polishing content and tailoring it for learning UX.

What challenges did you face when trying to get AI to produce the results you wanted?

• Needing very specific prompts: Vague prompts produced generic or off-target content; getting exactly what you wanted required iteratively refining prompts (e.g., specifying audience, reading level, length, tone, and where text would appear).
• Fact/accuracy and specificity: When the content involved technical details or company-specific policies, the Assistant sometimes invented plausible-sounding but incorrect details (hallucinations), so the outputs needed verification.
• Visual/media limitations: Generated media suggestions or placeholders were helpful, but sometimes mismatched the exact visual style, licensing needs, or instructional clarity; replacements or edits were necessary.
• Integration/context gaps: Occasionally, the Assistant didn’t fully account for surrounding interactions (triggers, layers, branching logic) in Storyline, so UI/behavior details had to be adjusted manually.