Rod, thanks for the memories. Yes, learning objects were supposed to separate out content from definition. It sounds like that PCD3 content element was on the side of ‘smart content’ instead of smart system (and happy to be wrong). I’ve argued for the latter, but lots of ways to be smarter about content than our current ‘hardwiring’.

First let me say how important your observations are – and how difficult documents are to edit where styles are an unknown factor!

With respect to learning, I may have clouded memory, but weren’t Learning Objects supposed to “separate content from definition”?

What I do remember correctly however is that the Authoring Language PCD3 from Control Data (which morphed into Authorware), had a specific Content element that was designed so it could be referenced and dropped in where needed. Much like a subroutine, variable settings could be passed backwards an forwards between the “content” and “lesson” to determine how it was to be used and/or displayed.

I suspect some of the techniques to enable this were beyond many who tried to embrace authoring for computer-assisted learning.

What you comments do remind me is that having control over the delivery device (i.e. the computer in educational environments) gives you the tools to manage learning like styles manage format – at least I think that analogy holds.

Thanks again!