Newbie starting eLearning series; Templates
I am leading an effort to do the following: Create a style guide for eLearning design and development for training on and salesforce and subsequent implementation. (done) Create three types of eLearning templates in Storyline to create: demo try it test it Getting started is the hardest! I have a semi-template design idea and we have our guidelines, but are there best practices to creating standard templates that will be replicated for the many 'steps/processes' our learners will need to learn, do and test out. We will have end-users who will use these eLearnings as pre-work. They have to test out to move onto the next eLearning and then the in-person training. Thank you for helping get us started!French Canada Translation export
Hello E-Heroes, I am experiencing an issue with Storyline 360 translation exports and would appreciate your comments/help. Smartling (translation platform) claims their .xliff is ok Issue Summary I have successfully created and translated multiple language versions of the same Storyline course (approximately 10 languages) without any issues. However, the French (Canada) version behaves differently. Steps Performed Open the original English (.story) file. Export Word for Translation → Success. Create a copy of the English course using Save As. Export Word for Translation from the copied course → Success. Import the translated FR(CAN) XLIFF file. Translation imports successfully and all content appears correctly translated. Export XLIFF from the FR(CAN) version → Success. Export Word for Translation from the FR(CAN) version → Fails with the message: "The translation export failed." Thank you!!!
A lightweight workflow for handling scope changes after storyboard approval
Hi everyone, One problem I keep seeing in training projects is that a storyboard is reviewed and approved, but new requests continue to arrive afterward. The issue is usually not the feedback itself. The problem is that a late request can quietly become part of the approved scope without anyone making an explicit decision about: - whether it is inside or outside the original scope; - what impact it has on course duration and development effort; - who is responsible for the decision; - whether it belongs in the current version or a later release. I have been testing a lightweight workflow with three parts. 1. Lock the approved baseline Record the original learning objective, approved scope, version, and decision owner. After approval, the baseline should not be silently overwritten. 2. Turn every late request into a decision For each request, record: - requester; - requested change; - in scope or out of scope; - impact on duration, effort, and review cycles; - decision owner; - target version; - accept, defer, or reject. 3. Separate four different events These should not be treated as the same thing: - Review completed - Changes requested - Version approved - Final release recorded A reviewer finishing their comments does not necessarily mean that the version has been approved, and version approval does not necessarily mean that the course has been released. I also converted this workflow into a small browser-based pilot: https://training-learning-rails.vercel.app/ It requires no account, does not upload files, and stores the pilot data only in the user’s own browser. The tool is secondary to the workflow. What I am most interested in understanding is: At what point does this process differ from how SME and stakeholder approval actually works in your organization? I would especially appreciate examples where: - multiple SMEs give conflicting instructions; - an approved storyboard continues to grow; - nobody is sure which version was finally approved; - review completion and final sign-off are confused. MosesLess Is More Is Not Just About Content, but About Learning Experience
After working in instructional design for many years, I've come to realize that "less is more" is often misunderstood. It is usually associated with simplifying content, such as making courses shorter, reducing information, or avoiding overload. But in my experience, it goes beyond that. Even when we have correctly identified what learners need to know, do, or change in order to meet business goals, there is still another important question: How should we design the learning experience itself? The goal should be to help learners learn with the least unnecessary effort. Not by removing depth or rigor, but by removing friction that does not contribute to learning. Over the years, I've seen many different approaches to learning design. Some learning experiences feel under-designed, where the lack of structure or intention makes it difficult for learners to stay engaged or understand the purpose of the content. I've also seen cases where, in an effort to avoid being "too simple" or "boring," additional layers of interaction, visual elements, or gamification are introduced. Many of us have probably spent hours building advanced interactions in Storyline or carefully structuring a Rise course because we wanted the learning experience to feel more engaging. There is nothing wrong with using these features. The question is whether they genuinely support learning. Sometimes these additions are driven more by what the tool allows us to build than by what learners actually need. As a result, learners may end up spending more time completing interactions than understanding, retaining, or applying the knowledge that really matters. This is especially important in corporate learning. Learners are often balancing training with their daily responsibilities. Time is limited, and attention is limited. That is why I believe we should be intentional about where we add complexity. Interaction is not the problem. In fact, meaningful interaction is essential for learning. The key word is meaningful. The most valuable learning experiences are those that help learners understand concepts more deeply, retain what they have learned, and apply that knowledge in real work situations. This is where I choose to focus my design effort. Not on adding interaction for its own sake, but on identifying the moments in learning that truly matter. Instead of asking, "What cool Storyline feature can I use here?", I think we should be asking, "How does this interaction help learners understand, retain, or apply what they need to learn?" When we design with that intention, learning can often become simpler while also becoming more effective. That's the kind of learning experience I continue to strive for. I'd love to hear how you decide when an interaction is truly worth adding.How are you handling certificate delivery?
Certificate delivery keeps coming up, so I wanted to share the approach I settled on after trying a few and hear how others are doing it. The recurring problem: a learner finishes a course, and you want them to get a certificate that (a) looks exactly like the slide you designed, (b) lands in their inbox automatically, and (c) is recorded somewhere you can look up later. Native print-to-PDF and LMS certificates got me part of the way, but not all three. What I ended up building: On the certificate slide, the Send button runs an Execute JavaScript trigger that posts the slide to a small backend endpoint. The backend renders that actual slide, so the PDF is pixel-perfect; no rebuilding the layout server-side and hoping the fonts match. It emails the PDF to the learner over SMTP, and logs every issue to a database with a simple admin dashboard (search, re-send, download). It runs on ordinary cPanel hosting - no monthly third-party service and no per-certificate fees - and one backend serves multiple courses. How's everyone else handling this native download, LMS-issued certs, Google Sheets/Zapier, a paid service? Curious what's working for you. I do this kind of Storyline-to-backend integration, so happy to go deeper on any of it if it's useful.Accessibility Issues with Rise 360 Courses?
What best practices do you use to create accessible Rise 360 courses that meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards? I work on a rapid development team that primarily uses Rise 360. My previous team, which used Storyline and took much longer to develop, claims that Rise 360 has "Accessibility Issues." Our company is pushing for more compliant instructional design, and I’m looking for ways to use Rise 360 while ensuring our courses are accessible at WCAG 2.2 Level AA. So far, I’ve noticed that only a few interaction types in Rise seem to lack accessibility at this level. Are there best practice guidelines for Rise 360 that can help address these known "Accessibility Issues"? Thanks so much for any recommendations.Software eLearning creation
Hi all, I work in the NHS (Healthcare) and design clinical systems software eLearning. Most of the courses have multiple roles, so the eLearning is tailored and relevant to different people. I feel it is very dry as it is walking people through how to use the systems and how to enter patient data in the correct place. I am struggling to get my head around scenario based eLearning when we have multiple roles within the one course. I am looking for inspiration and any examples of how to build more engaging software eLearning for end users. Any help, ideas or suggestions would be great.Reimagining Navigation Intros with 3D Motion
There’s more than one way to begin an eLearning course; and sometimes, sometimes the best way isn’t with text content, but with atmosphere. I’ve always been inspired by how airline safety videos set the tone before a flight begins. They take a routine moment and turn it into something memorable through motion, storytelling, and design. In this short navigation intro, I demo how to bring that same prelaunch energy into your course. With 3D motion and audio cues, you can instantly draw your learners in, before a single concept is even introduced. Navigation Intro: https://craftuxd.tech/Audio/story.html I designed this to spark engagement, proof that learning experience design gets fun when you experiment with 3D, soundscapes, animation, and visual storytelling. Here’s a quick tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62MRlM1iz0Melearning as an evidence package for legal team
I'm looking for some advice from others using Articulate Storyline and Rise. Our organization is responsible for providing copies of completed training to our legal team when courses are involved in litigation or other legal matters. Historically, this was straightforward because our courses were primarily click-and-read, and we could provide a Word document containing the course script. As our courses have become much more interactive, with scenarios, branching, knowledge checks, drag-and-drops, simulations, and other learner interactions, we're finding that a traditional script no longer accurately represents what the learner actually experienced. For those of you using Storyline or Rise, what do you provide to your legal, compliance, or records management teams when they need a legally defensible copy of a course? Do you still create a script? If so, what does it include? Do you archive videos, screenshots, source files, SCORM packages, or something else? Have you developed a standard "evidence package" for each published course? If your legal team prefers a searchable document, how are you balancing that need with accurately documenting interactive content? I'm especially interested in hearing from government, healthcare, financial services, or other highly regulated organizations, but I'd appreciate insights from anyone who's established a sustainable process. Thanks in advance for sharing what's worked or what you've learned the hard way!
