How can two items appear the same to a learner so that either one can be dropped on either of two targets? The situation is three targets, four sets of three drag items per set. But in one set of the three drag items, two of the items appear identical to the learner, because either one is correct for either of two of the targets, but not the third target. In short: Two of the targets need the same thing so two of the drag items look identical.
If I take the fifty percent change the leaner gets it wrong, they will have dragged the items correctly, but get an incorrect response.
Here is a sample that has three drop targets and four drag items. Three of the drag items must be dropped on a target, and the fourth must not be. Any one of the three drag items may be dropped on any of the drop targets. Each target allows only one drag item.
I have a simpler one, but it allows multiple items to be dropped on each target.
I really appreciate you taking your time with this.
Because this is a multiple drag + drop rather than a pick one, I am working out that your triggers need to be revised so they do a “Change state” for the target shapes based on variables rather than the default programming.
This means a true/false variable for the correct item in each of the four categories of drag items, Initially false, each is set to true when the corresponding shape is dragged to the correct target. For the two items that can be dragged to either of two targets, variables of GoodDrop_1 and GoodDrop_2 are set to true as either drag item is dropped on either target.
Any one of the drops then sets the state of the target to “Drop Correct” if all of the variables are true.
This of course means a separate trigger for each of the four categories (with a condition of all variables correct), which is a bit cluttered, but seems a workable solution.
Does this look good to you, or would you suggest a different approach?
BTW: The snap back paths in your example are really slick!
I think you've got it all worked out. Yes, it is cluttered, and gets almost exponentially more complex as more items are added, but I haven't found a better way.
The problem is in trying to replicate all the default functions built into a drag and drop interaction. The more of them you are willing to do without, the easier is gets.
It sounds like you are well on your way to getting this remodeled to suit your needs. Blessings on your project.
Thanks again for opening up a new level of functionality for me. Your example is a whole lesson in itself on pushing boundaries past the standard tutorials.
You are right that the approach stated is working; however, when I run a scenario where the learner gets things wrong, and then drags items onto the correct targets, the system continues to return the incorrect message. But that seems to be a different issue that I need to research further.
6 Replies
Here is a sample that has three drop targets and four drag items. Three of the drag items must be dropped on a target, and the fourth must not be. Any one of the three drag items may be dropped on any of the drop targets. Each target allows only one drag item.
I have a simpler one, but it allows multiple items to be dropped on each target.
Thanks Walt,
This opens up a whole new world for me and am trying to wrap my mind around it now.
Feel free to ask if you have any questions.
Thanks Walt,
I really appreciate you taking your time with this.
Because this is a multiple drag + drop rather than a pick one, I am working out that your triggers need to be revised so they do a “Change state” for the target shapes based on variables rather than the default programming.
This means a true/false variable for the correct item in each of the four categories of drag items, Initially false, each is set to true when the corresponding shape is dragged to the correct target.
For the two items that can be dragged to either of two targets, variables of GoodDrop_1 and GoodDrop_2 are set to true as either drag item is dropped on either target.
Any one of the drops then sets the state of the target to “Drop Correct” if all of the variables are true.
This of course means a separate trigger for each of the four categories (with a condition of all variables correct), which is a bit cluttered, but seems a workable solution.
Does this look good to you, or would you suggest a different approach?
BTW: The snap back paths in your example are really slick!
I think you've got it all worked out. Yes, it is cluttered, and gets almost exponentially more complex as more items are added, but I haven't found a better way.
The problem is in trying to replicate all the default functions built into a drag and drop interaction. The more of them you are willing to do without, the easier is gets.
It sounds like you are well on your way to getting this remodeled to suit your needs. Blessings on your project.
Walt,
Thanks again for opening up a new level of functionality for me. Your example is a whole lesson in itself on pushing boundaries past the standard tutorials.
You are right that the approach stated is working; however, when I run a scenario where the learner gets things wrong, and then drags items onto the correct targets, the system continues to return the incorrect message. But that seems to be a different issue that I need to research further.
This discussion is closed. You can start a new discussion or contact Articulate Support.