Scorm 1.2 was a fairly simple implementation that didn't specify a lot of options for the content. It was a rather naive implementation in my opinion. Many people felt frustrated by the limitations of fields, or write only fields that should have been read/write, and poorly scoped statuses (e.g. completed/passed).
Scorm 1.2 content will work on a lot of platforms these days and covers off the most basic needs of many - how much time the content took, and whether it is complete, and whether it is passed or failed.
Scorm 1.3 / 2004 sought to address a number of limitations of 1.2's internal model by bring in other emerging standards such as content sequencing, more meaningful objective statuses and more comprehensive information about the objectives/interactions (such as what they are for - metadata - which was sorely missed in 1.2). Scorm 2004 is considerably more complicated internally and quite a bit more fiddly for LMS's to implement; many content authoring/packaging tools still don't explit the power of content metadata and sequencing - and so if there's not so much Scorm 2004 need out there LMS's aren't going to go to the trouble of supporting it as quickly. Bit of a catch 22 situation.
I would check with the LMS/ELM administrator to find which version they are currently using. Then all you need to do is select that option when you publish. There really isn't a different in the design process.
2 Replies
Scorm 1.2 was a fairly simple implementation that didn't specify a lot of options for the content. It was a rather naive implementation in my opinion. Many people felt frustrated by the limitations of fields, or write only fields that should have been read/write, and poorly scoped statuses (e.g. completed/passed).
Scorm 1.2 content will work on a lot of platforms these days and covers off the most basic needs of many - how much time the content took, and whether it is complete, and whether it is passed or failed.
Scorm 1.3 / 2004 sought to address a number of limitations of 1.2's internal model by bring in other emerging standards such as content sequencing, more meaningful objective statuses and more comprehensive information about the objectives/interactions (such as what they are for - metadata - which was sorely missed in 1.2). Scorm 2004 is considerably more complicated internally and quite a bit more fiddly for LMS's to implement; many content authoring/packaging tools still don't explit the power of content metadata and sequencing - and so if there's not so much Scorm 2004 need out there LMS's aren't going to go to the trouble of supporting it as quickly. Bit of a catch 22 situation.
I would check with the LMS/ELM administrator to find which version they are currently using. Then all you need to do is select that option when you publish. There really isn't a different in the design process.
This discussion is closed. You can start a new discussion or contact Articulate Support.