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!Remove "require to pass before continue" to publish to Review360
When we put a module in review with unrestricted navigation the quiz and knowledge assessment "require to pass before continue" still prevents free navigation. When we have a large number of quizzes or knowledge assessment questions it can be time consuming to turn each of the settings off manually before publishing to review. It would be really efficient if there was a setting you could select to disable all quiz and knowledge assessment settings that "require to pass before continue" before publishing to Review 360.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.Enable Content Creaters to mute or change notification frequency FOR the Reviewers of their course
I've seen this suggesting going back 7 or so years, and it seems like reviewers are being innundated with emails when their comments on a course are interacted with. Currently, Rise requires the reviewers to make an account, go into their settings, and either mute or change the frequency themselves. I have recieved numerous complaints of people not wanting to go in and make an account and figure it out themselevs, so I would love an option as a creator to be able to change the notifications settings for my reviewers on a course to only send out a daily emails. They don't need to have 8 different emails when it could be 1 at the end of the day. Of course, default settings would be email for every notification, but allowing us to have more control and not be blamed for 7,000 email notifications would be great! Seems like this has been an ongoing issue for years and i'd like to see it resolved. Reviewers seems to want this as well.PDF Reader or View PDF via Scrolling Panel
The ask: Could a PDF reader or an addition to the scrolling panel allowing PDFs be added to Storyline's functionality? Our team is required to present manual pages in our lessons, necessitating the use of a scrolling panels. To display manuals or textbook pages that are saved as PDFs in Storyline, you must process the conversion of the PDF in a third-party program. After the conversion, you must import the images and align each page individually in the scrolling panel. The pages must be grouped in a certain way for the scrolling panel to populate correctly. I’ve included a Review 360 link with an example of what the end results looks like: Review 360: PDF Scrolling Panel Example If a PDF reader was included in Storylines toolset, it would make life for designers much easier. Our team is looking for the following features: Allowing PDFs to be imported into Storyline without the need for conversion to JPEG or PNG Automated scrolling for multiple pages. Say the PDF has multiple pages, the user can either flip through the pages or scroll through them. How would it function?: Additional functionality to scrolling panels OR including a built in PDF reader to Storyline's toolset Additional Functionality: Zoom functions Enable PDF bookmarks We appreciate any updates or notice on building this functionality, if possible.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.
