Standards for e-learning: The e-MapScholar Experience

Background

The e-MapScholar project [1] aims to develop tools and learning and teaching materials to enhance and support the use of geo-spatial data currently available within tertiary education in learning and teaching, including digital map data available from the EDINA Digimap service [2]. These tools and learning materials will be delivered over the Web and will be accessed from a repository of materials branded the "Learning Resource Centre".

The project is funded by the JISC [3] to form part of the DNER, now called the Information Environment [4] and works closely with other projects funded under the same programme.

The Need For Standards

From the outset of the e-MapScholar Project it was apparent that various standards needed to be agreed upon and conformed to. The two core issues were:

1. Material and software would be developed at a number of different sites, but needed to be integrated together as part of the software engineering process.
2. The solution should work on a variety of different platforms, yet be reliable and predictable in its behaviour.

In reaching a broad community of users, a compromise needed to be found between delivery of service to 'low spec' PCs and high-end functionality that would support interactive tools. A range of technical discussions at the outset of the project discussed these implications in the context of choice of standards and technical evaluation criteria.

The Approach Taken

The various technical elements and their respective standards were specified at the start of the project. These included the use of Java 1.1 for the interactive applets (see Figure 1), and Javascript 1.2 and HTML 4.01 for the user interface. All learning material content would be stored in XML files which would be transformed using XSLT and Java. Similarly, authors of learning materials would also be provided with a set of guidelines for producing the content.

Figure 1: Screen shots of interactive tools produced by e-MapScholar

Java 1.1

All software components were written in Java 1.1. All code has and remains fully compliant with this version. Though Java 1.1 does not have as much functionality as later versions e.g. 1.2 and 1.3, it makes the service compliant with a broader choice of browsers and operating systems. Java code was also written to control the conversion of XML into HTML.

JavaScript 1.2 and HTML 4.0.1

HTML 4.01 is used for the layout of the learning resource centre pages. Using HTML standards ensure that the site is more accessible to a wider range of browsers, and is transformed more quickly and easily. The use of client-side JavaScript has been kept to a minimum and only used for pop-up window items such as the help menu and map legends. These are all written in JavaScript 1.2. Using this version of JavaScript again reflected a compromise between control of graphics and levels of interaction, and compatibility with browsers and operating systems.

Author Guidelines

Authors providing content to the learning units have been issued with a document containing guidance notes. This document aims to standardise the content of the learning units, by providing procedures on how various elements of the units should be written. These elements include guidelines on the structuring of a unit, wording of learning objectives and quiz tools, and the acceptable formats for images and photographs. Complying with these guidelines will ensure the pedagogical aspect of the units meet teaching requirements and are suitable for students across a range of abilities.

The imposition of all of the above standards increased the chances of interoperability between the various units and modules comprising the service.

Problems Experienced

The use of Java 1.1 should ensure that users do not have to download the plug-in as the majority of browsers come packaged with this version of Java Virtual Machine installed (or higher). However, last year Microsoft launched their latest version of Internet Explorer (6.0) without a Java VM. This means that users of IE 6 will have to download a Java plug-in to run any Java applets, regardless of what version of Java the applets have been created with.

Web statistics [5] (illustrated in Figure 2) show that Internet Explorer is the most widely used Web browser, with IE 6 already accounting for a considerable portion of this usage. This means that 48% of Internet users will have to download the Java plug-in order to run any Java applets.

Figure 2: Pie chart of browser statistics generated using data from [6]

With many users upgrading to the new service in the future, one might question the point in using Java 1.1 when the majority of Internet users will still have to download the plug-in? Ideally, standards should be employed with the majority of users in mind.

Things We Would Do Differently

At the outset we chose Java 1.1 since it was incorporated in Internet Explorer and the majority of other browsers, and would not involve users having to download the plug-in. It is estimated that 48% of web users are using IE6, all of whom will need to download the Java plug-in. Our ambition of 'use without plug-in' has somewhat evaporated, and an argument could now be made that we could ask users to download other plug-ins, notably 'Flash'. Ironically IE6 users would not need to download Flash player as it comes ready packaged in IE6.

If Flash were used (in conjunction with Java 1.1) it would allow greater levels of interaction with the user, and easier development of visualisation tools. However, this would have required access to Flash developers which the project does not have at this stage. Currently no decision has been made on whether it is worth taking advantage of the additional functionality afforded by Flash player, but it does open a door, which was previously thought to be firmly closed.

On the whole, throughout the project, various software engineering problems have arisen. But broad agreement on the use of standards coupled with clarification of system requirements, and requirement specifications has helped to keep the project manageable from a software engineering prospective.

References

1. e-MapScholar Web site, EDINA
   <http://edina.ac.uk/projects/mapscholar/>
2. Digimap Web site, EDINA
   <http://edina.ac.uk/digimap/>
3. JISC Web site,
   <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/>
4. Information Environment, JISC
   <http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=about_info_env>
5. Browser News Web Statistics,
   <http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm>
6. W3C Schools Browser Statistics,
   <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>

Contact Details

Lynne Robertson
Geography
School of Earth, Environmental and Geographical Sciences
The University of Edinburgh
Drummond Street
Edinburgh EH8 9XP

Email: lr@geo.ed.ac.uk