I would like all incorrect responses in my course to let the user try again. There is a trigger action "Jump to this slide" in the slide layer, but I would like it to be in the feedback master. This trigger action doesn't show up in the feedback master. Is there a way I can make the feedback master let the user retry the question instead of putting the same trigger on every slide?
I suggest you use the built-in Try Again functionality.
When you select >1 in the Attempts field, Storyline automatically creates a Try Again layer that has the necessary programming built in.
That's fine, but the same issue arises. In order to retry the question, I have to hide the "Try Again" layer. How do I do that from a feedback master so I don't have to duplicate the trigger in every question slide?
The Try Again Layer comes with a "Hide this Layer" trigger already built on it.
How to put the trigger in the feedback master?
It's already there if you use a built-in question slide with more than one attempt.
We programmers like to reduce or remove redundancy so that if we have to make any changes, we only have to do it once. Storyline does not abide by this philosophy.
Yes, the built-in Try Again layer has a trigger that is automatically included. But a duplicate of this layer and trigger must be included in every question slide. Now, for the trigger to work, it must be attached to a button that is also in the layer. This button is also duplicated in every question slide. So now there are multiple copies of both the button and trigger.
Now, let's say my client doesn't like the color of one of the button states. Instead of changing it once, I have to open the button on every Try Again layer on every question slide and repeat the changes. Hopefully, I won't make a mistake by forgetting to change one of the buttons or making the color of one of the button states slightly differently.
So the objective of this thread is to find a way to put both the button and its trigger in a feedback master, where there would only be one copy of them. Apparently, it can't be done.
That seems like a lot of work. If I were a programmer, I'd do it this way.
