Enhancing Review 360 Feedback Management with Categorization Tags
Currently, in Review 360, feedback and comments provided during reviews are captured in a generic format without any structured categorization. This often leads to ambiguity when interpreting feedback, as reviewers and developers must manually infer whether a comment refers to an error, an enhancement suggestion, or a query. The lack of classification makes prioritization and resolution time-consuming, especially when handling large volumes of feedback across multiple stakeholders. Post-implementation of the proposed feature—a dropdown selection allowing users to tag feedback as Error, Enhancement, Query or Not applicable—the process becomes significantly more streamlined. Categorization at the point of entry ensures clarity, enabling teams to filter and sort feedback based on type, prioritize critical issues, and allocate resources effectively. This structured approach not only improves communication between reviewers and developers but also accelerates decision-making and enhances overall productivity by reducing misinterpretation and manual effort. This categorization should also be reflected in the generated reports.Review 360: not yet, what we need
We would like to use Review for coordinating corrections with the authors. Unfortunately, at the moment I still don’t see much added value in it. This is mainly because a review mode cannot be activated for the actual course; instead, a course duplicate is created, which is then commented on. For the actual implementation, two windows have to be used so that comments from the review course can be transferred to the real one. Another issue: You can’t place comments directly at specific points, but only attach screenshots of the location to the comment. This does make it somewhat easier to find the relevant spots, but it’s still not very convenient. And: the most recently created comment always appears at the top, which means that while you scroll from top to bottom, the comments are displayed in the opposite order. Would it be possible to optimize this? Collaborative work with Office products such as Word could serve as a good example here.Please Add Universal Continue Button Settings or Override for Rise
Courses I support use restricted navigation in the Articulate Rise materials I create for them. While necessary for the students, continue buttons that require completion of prior interactions are very cumbersome for the SMEs when they review the Articulate assignments. I can toggle Restricted Navigation off before publishing to Articulate Review, which helps the SMEs a little, but within a lesson/section, the issue with restricted continue buttons remains. It would be brilliant to have a Continue Button Override checkbox we could turn on when publishing to Review, either greying them out or making all of them unlocked. This would allow collaborators to review projects without needing to complete every interaction.Review360 Email Requests
Could we please see an enhancement where when we send an email to a SME for review in Review360 it also CCs the Learning Consultant/Designer? This would mean we would have a copy of the email(s) that are system-generated. Or if these were stored somehow in the Review360. There have been some instances where SMEs have said they haven't received the email or the right information wasn't in it. A copy of what was sent is great from a control perspective so that if we've made a mistake, we can correct it right away.Remove Articulate Banner from Review 360
When sharing the course through Review 360, the header is huge and includes confusing information, such as a large Sign In button that is not required for learners to view the course, but they may think they need to sign in. It also leaves a strange white space on the side and a footer. The Review button also shows even when it's disabled. I like that you can hide the previous versions, but it would also be nice to remove the "version" section and even the creator. Thank you!Allow publishing access for more than one owner
My team works in a very collaborative environment and the "owner" of the course in Rise360 may not be the only owner or the only person that needs access to publish the course to our LMS. We previously all had access to publish the course as long as we were listed as collaborators (manager or editor). As of today, this access is gone and only the owner has the option to publish the course. I saw in Articulate Community that this question has been asked previously in the context of an employee leaving the organization and it was recommended to just share the link. This does not allow us to publish the course in our LMS to track completion for compliance. I'm not sure what changed for us to previously have access to the publish feature regardless of ownership or why we no longer have the access to do so, but there should at the very least be an option to assign collaborators as "co-owners" so we can have equal publishing/modification rights on team projects. Thank you!Review 360 - Reviewer Leaving Comments
NOTE: RE-POSTED FROM A DIFFERENT BOARD This topic has likely been covered somewhere in this discussion board, but I couldn't find any related posts. When a reviewer leaves a comment or required edit, I'm not a fan of the Comment section to the right. For sections with longer content, the reviewer has to take time to explain where the required edit is actually located, because if they don't, the content creator will have to search through the content to look for the item being referenced. To me, it would be much more ideal if the reviewer could interact directly with the content being displayed, and leave their comment/required edit at the point being referenced. In essence I'm referring to a function similar to the Comment function in Microsoft Word, where we can see exactly what is being referenced. Likewise, a Track Changes function would also be ideal. The reviewer could make an edit to the content, and the content creator could then Accept or Reject the proposed change. My reviewers have complained about the above issues on numerous occasions. I believe that having more direct access and interactivity with the content would greatly improve the reviewer experience. It would also eliminate the need to provide the reviewer with a PDF version of the course to make edits, which I have resorted to in the past. Love this community! Love Articulate products!
