Testing a “Second Set of Eyes” for Digital Learning
Hi everyone, I’m currently piloting something new and I’m looking for a few course creators who’d be open to testing it with me. I’ve been working on an instructional framework, designed to act as a structured second set of eyes on digital learning. The goal is to surface clarity, accessibility, and instructional integrity issues early, before review cycles get heavy or rework becomes costly. For those who might be interested, I’m offering "Clarity Snapshot": a short diagnostic that highlights where clarity or learner trust may be at risk, plus guidance on what matters most to address first. (on a Rise or Storyline course, in pdf version). Nothing to sell here, simply curious to have the precious input from other professionals No judgment on courses per se, it's really just to run some pilots. The main goal is to support designers and creators who care deeply about quality and want sharper signals than subjective feedback alone. If you’re curious and have a course you’d like a fresh set of eyes on, feel free to comment or DM me. Happy to share more context before anything else. Thanks for helping shape this.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!
