TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:CBT v Training Redirect From:ELISSA LYNN BEBEE <elb600z -at- MAIL -dot- ODU -dot- EDU> Date:Tue, 17 Mar 1998 10:32:02 -0500
I'm the original poster of the CBT v Training message.
At my company, we are using the very latest technologies. We are using
Java for our CBT development so the CBTs can be deployed across the web.
We are very anxious for Java 1.2 so we can support sound (wav, mid, etc).
We tend to think that we are truly on the cutting edge. Our sources think
differently from most of the responses I've seen from people on this
topic. They say that except for the computer illiterate anyone can
understand and learn enough from the CBT to do his/her job or know how
to use an application.
Do you think that it is possible that the majoirty way of thinking (i.e.
CBT could never replace stand-up training) is that way because we have
never been able to build anything as such until now? CBTs have been around
for quite some time, but we think that we have a way of doing it better.
No more page turners that lose the user's attention. We have built a
multimedia presentation that includes both an entertaining way to learn
the product for the first time user as well as a reference
section for the more seasoned user.
It it *impossible* to build a CBT that can replace stand-up training?