Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Interactivity & Mobile Development

by 1 Comment

A while ago, I characterized the stages of web development as:

  • Web 1.0: producer-generated content, where you had to be able to manage a server and work in obscure codes
  • Web 2.0: user-generated content, where web tools allowed anyone to generate web content
  • Web 3.0: system-generated content, where engines or agents will custom-assemble content for you based upon what’s known about you, what context you’re in, what content’s available, etc

It occurred to me that an analogous approach may be useful in thinking about interactivity.   To understand the problem, realize that there has been a long history of attempts to characterize different levels of interactivity, e.g. Rod Sims’ paper for ITFORUM, for a variety of reasons. More recently, interactivity has been proposed as a item to tag within learning object systems to differentiate objects.   Unfortunately, the taxonomy has been ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ without any parameters to distinguish between them. Very few people, without some guidance, are going to want to characterize their content as ‘low’ interactivity.

Thinking from the perspective of mobile content, it occurred to me that I see 3 basic levels of interaction. One is essentially passive: you watch a video, listen to an audio, or read a document (text potentially augmented by graphics). This is roughly equivalent to producer-generated content.   The next level would be navigable content.   Most specifically, it’s hyper-documents (e.g. like the web), where users can navigate to what they want. This comes into play for me on mobile, as both static content and navigable content are easily done cross-platform.   I note that user-generated content through most web interfaces is technically beyond this level.

The next level is system-generated interaction, where what you’ve done has an effect on what happens next.   The web is largely state-independent, though that’s changing (e.g. Amazon’s mass-customization). This is where you have some computation going on in the background, whether it’s form processing or full game interaction.   And, this is where mobile falls apart.   Rich computation and associated graphics are hard to do.   Flash has been the lingua franca of online interactivity, supporting delivery cross-platform.   However, Flash hasn’t run well on mobile devices, it is claimed, for performance reasons.   Yet there is no other cross-platform environment, really.   You have to compile for each platform independently.

This analysis provides 3 meaningful levels of interactivity for defining content, and indicates what is currently feasible and what still provides barriers for mobile as well.   The mobile levels will change, perhaps if HTML 5 can support more powerful computation, interaction, and graphics, or if the performance problems (or perception thereof) go away.   Fingers crossed!

Why bash the LMS?

by 10 Comments

In response to a query about why someone would question the concept of the LMS, I penned the (slightly altered, for clarity) response that follows:

What seems to me to be the need is to have a unified performer-facing environment.   It should provide access to courses when those are relevant, resources/job aids, and eCommunity tools too.   That’s what a full technology support environment should contain.   And it should be performer- and performance-centric, so I come in and find my tools ‘to hand’.   And I ‘get’ the need for compliance, and the role of courses.

So, what’re my concerns?

On principle, I want the best tool for each task.   The analogy is to the tradeoffs between a Swiss Army knife and a tool kit.   There will be orgs for which an all-singing all-dancing system make sense, as they can manage it, they can budget for it.   In general, however, I’d want the best tool for each job and a way to knit them together.   So I’d be inclined to couple an LMS with other tools, not assume I can get one that’s best in all it’s capabilities.   I’m sure you’ve seen the companies that put in some version of a capability to be able to tick it off on a feature list, but it’s a brain-dead implementation.

Also, I do worry about the DNA of the all-singing, all-dancing.   I was asked whether a social system and an LMS, each with the same features, would be equivalent. Yes, but.   It depends on the learner experience, and that could be different.   The feature list could be identical, and all the features accessible, but I’d rather have it organized around the learner’s communities and tasks rather than courses.   But even that’s not the big worry.

My big worry, both at the individual and org level: is that focusing on an LMS, and talking about an LMS, focuses on formal learning.   And history, tradition, and a bunch of other things already have made that too much the emphasis.   Yes, I’m on a crusade, not to replace formal learning, but to put it in balance with the rest.   And given all the weight tilting towards formal, I think the pressure has to be to push much harder on non-formal before we’ll get a balance.

As an aside, my take on Snake Oil is that it’s actually about the social space, not LMSs.   Everyone who can program a DB is suddenly a social media vendor.   And lots of folks who’ve used twitter and blogged a few times are suddenly social media experts. That’s the snake oil; and it’s SoMe, not LMS (it happened there, too, but that’s past).

I don’t want my colleagues who work for LMS companies to take the bashing personally; I’ve great respect for their integrity and intellect, but I want them to understand that it’s a mission.   I’m not anti-LMS, or anti-LMS vendor; I’m anti-‘courses are the one true learning’, and I’m afraid that leading with the LMS is a slippery slope to that place.

LMSs are a tool, social networks are a tool.   I’m perfectly willing to believe that “the remaining LMS vendors are adding Web 2.0 / Social / Collaborative functionality into their offerings in a robust way”, but then don’t call it an LMS!   LMSs are about ‘managing’ learning, and that’s not what we want to do (nor, really, can do), nor do we want organizations thinking like that.   We want to facilitate learning.   Call them learning infrastructure platforms (you wanna give me some LIP?), or something else.

But if someone keeps leading with ‘learning management‘, I’m going to keep suggesting a different path.

Making Learning Broadly Available

by Leave a Comment

A post by Ellen Wagner got me thinking about what I’m really looking for in an interactivity solution.   She was bringing some clarity to the Adobe Flash – HTML 5 debate, pointing out that HTML 5 is not yet a standard, and emphasizing some moves by Adobe to make Flash more open.   Whether I agree or not, I realized my desire is not to choose one or the other, but instead it’s to find a solution!

The opportunity I’ve talked about before is a channel for publishers to move to a new era.   The title of my blog is learnlets, based upon a claim I made almost two decades ago: in the future there will be lots of small interactive learning experiences (learnlets) that will teach you anything you want to know, including how to make small interactive learning experiences.   That’s still a dream I have, but we’re now capable of realizing it, and there are some nuances that come from thinking about it in the current context.

Publishers produce books, but with the technology augments that they produce (ancillary or companion sites), they have most of the components needed to put meaningful problems (read: scenarios) in the mix and resource around those to create real learning experiences.   With a market channel for those learning experiences (something like an app store), where it could go out to anyone’s device (tablets would be ideal), individuals could develop their own learning path, and for formal education we’d remove the burden of books (it pains me to watch my kids lug their own weight in books off to school!) and lift the learning.

What’s necessary, besides the devices and the market (and we’re getting those) is a meaningful interactivity standard.   Flash has had performance issues, and HTML 5 may not be quite ready for prime time (and I have not yet been convinced of it’s ability to handle simulation-driven interactions).   I don’t really care which one ends up ‘winning’, I just want a standard that allows me to deliver static (e.g. text, graphics), dynamic (video/audio/animations), and interactive content in a package that I can download and interact with!   It doesn’t have to report back, we’d likely have other ways to assess outcomes (though reporting wouldn’t be a bad thing).

I think that if we can lift our learning design to match the quality of our devices, and have the market to deliver those learning experiences where and when desired, we’ll have the opportunity to lift ourselves to another level.

User-generated curriculum & competencies?

by 1 Comment

I like jogging (ok, more like plodding), as it’s a time I can queue up some questions to think about and then take them on the road to get some insights.   In addition to some great thoughts on my presentation for the Innovations in eLearning Symposium, and my workshop at the mLearn Conference, I thought about LMS and social media.

I was reflecting on what I liked about Q2Learning’s model for system support, where a variety of things can be aggregated to achieve a competency: a course, a meeting, a project, etc.   It occurred to me to think that if someone can decide what goes together to create a course, why shouldn’t the community itself decide?

It goes further: I got to design my own undergraduate major. I took a bunch of things I’d done, and some things I thought augmented those activities to create a coherent body of study on what was then termed Computer-Based Education (UCSD didn’t have a program in it back then), and submitted it as a proposal.   The Provost vetted it, and I was on my way. Isn’t that a model that could be replicated?   Can’t we have folks propose their course of study?

I started thinking about having networks start moving to becoming communities by defining component skills and proposed paths for achieving those skills, and also supporting proposals for other paths.   Really, it’s about the community deciding how to help individuals move to the center, but with some explicit steps rather than implicit.

The learning organization role would be then one of facilitating this process of developing roles, competencies and curricula. It would certainly   be a way of addressing the decreasing half-life of knowledge, by having it continually updated by the community in which those roles and skills made sense.

In this way, a community would co-create it’s learning paths in a dynamic interchange between the goals and tasks.   And an LMS would then be a networking tool with the ability to manage the discussions, resources, and paths to competency as well as a learner’s record.   It would be more organic and coupled in a robust feedback loop, not externalized, abstracted, filtered, and returned in ways that may diminish the value.

The learning organization would be dispersed as members of the constituent communities, helping develop the components of the competency path in concert with the members, adding in their value and nurturing development.

The thinking hasn’t yet gone far beyond this yet, but I have to say that it seems to approach an appropriate blend between the value of bringing in a real understanding of knowledge (the role of a learning organization) with the dynamic co-development of understanding that characterizes a community.   Does this make sense to you?

A case for the LMS?

by 6 Comments

My Internet Time Alliance colleagues Harold Jarche and Jane Hart have been (rightly) eviscerating the LMS.   Harold put up a post that the “LMS is no longer the centre of the universe“,   while Jane asked “what is the future of the LMS“.   Both of them are recognizing the point I make about the scope of learning in thinking about performance: it’s more than just courses, it’s the whole ecosystem.

I think that, before we completely abandon the LMS (and that’s not necessarily what they advocate), we should examine the key capabilities an LMS provides and determine whether that role can be taken up elsewhere or how it can manifest in the broader system.   I see two key functions an LMS provides.

The first role is to provide access to courses: there’s one place where learners can go to sign up for face-to-face courses, or access online courses (whether to signup and then attend a synchronous event or to complete an asynchronous one).   Providing access to courses is a good thing, as there are situations where formal learning is the appropriate approach.

A second role is to track learner usage and completion of courses. Again, ascertaining an individual’s capabilities is valuable, whether it be by programmed assessment, 360 evaluation or otherwise.   Linking these interventions back to organizational outcomes is also valuable to determine whether the original objectives were appropriate and whether the intervention needs modification.   (BTW, I’m definitely assuming for the sake of the argument that there’s an enlightened analysis focusing on meaningful workplace objectives and an enlightened design combining cognitive and emotional design into a minimal and engaging experience).

Other capabilities – authoring, communications, etc – are secondary, really.   There are other ways to get those functions, so focusing on the core affordances is the appropriate perspective.

How do you provide learners with the ability to access courses?   The LMS model is that the learner comes to the LMS.   That’s a course-centric model. In a performance ecosystem model, we should have a learner performance-centric view, where courses, communities, resources (e.g. job aids, media files), etc are aligned to their interests, roles, and tasks.   Really, performers should have custom portals!

Similarly, tracking performance should cross courses, use of resources, and community actions to look for opportunities to facilitate.   We want to find ways to assist people in using the environment successfully, to augment the elements of the ecosystem, and to align it to the performance needs.   This is a bigger problem, but an LMS isn’t going to solve it.

All this argues, as Jane suggests in a followup post on A Transition Path to the Future, that “It may be that you want to retain it in some cut-down form, or it may be that it is providing no real value at all, and it is a barrier to ‘learning'”.     Harold similarly says in his followup post on Identifying a Collaboration Platform, that you “minimize use of the LMS”.

You could make access to formal learning available through a portal, but I think there’s an argument to have a tool for those responsible for formal learning to manage it. However, it probably should not be a performer-facing interface.

The big problem I see is that it’s too easy for the learning function in an organization to take the easy path and focus on the formal learning, and an LMS may be an enabler.   If you take the Pareto rule Jay Cross (another ITA colleague) touts where we spend 80% of our money on the 20% of value people obtain in the workplace from formal learning, you may have misplaced priorities.

It is likely that the first tool you should buy is a collaboration platform, as Harold’s suggesting, and LMS capability is an afterthought or addition, rather than the core need.   Truly, once people are up and performing, they need tools for accessing resources and each other. That infrastructure, like plumbing or electricity or air, is probably the most important (and potentially the best value) investment you can make.

Yes, you need to prepare the ground to seed, feed, weed, and breed the outcome, but the benefits are not only in the output, but also the demonstrable investment in employee value and success.   Let an LMS be a functional tool, not an enabler of mis-focused energy, and certainly not the core of your learning technology investment.   Look at the bigger picture, and budget accordingly.

May Big Q: Workplace Learning Technology 2015

by Leave a Comment

The Learning Circuits Blog Big Question of the Month for May is “What will workplace learning technology look like in 2015?”   This is a tough question for me, because I tend to see what could be the workplace tech if we really took advantage of the opportunities. Consequently, my predictions tend to be optimistic, as the real world has a way of not moving near as fast as one could wish.   Still, I actually prefer to think on what could be the possibilities, as it’s more inspiring.   Maybe I’ll answer both.

The opportunities on the table are immense.   Mobile technologies are taking off, we’re getting real power in technology standards (and still some hiccups), and we’re crossing boundaries between reality and virtual worlds.

Smartphones are on the rise, and new portable devices (e.g. tablets) are expanding the possibilities.   It’s highly plausible that we’ll have expanded the performance ecosystem to be location independent, and be providing the 4C’s in ways that allow powerful access, sharing, and collaboration.

Virtual worlds provide a different approach, where instead of augmenting reality, we’re re-contextualized in an artificial but enhanced space where capabilities that don’t exist in the real world are available to us.   We can build 3D models, communicate in micro or macro spaces (within molecules or between galaxies), and open up the hidden components of real spaces.   Again, we can leverage the 4C’s to go beyond courses to a fuller definition of learning.

This can be facilitated by standards.   If HTML 5 coalesces as it should, we can and should be delivering rich interactivity, not just content delivery.   Similarly, if we can move beyond ebook standards to capture interactivity, we can make easy marketplaces to deliver capability that is available regardless of connectivity. Virtual world standards are emerging too, and hopefully some convergence will have happened by 2015!

Also, if our backend systems progress as they can (and should), we should be able to move to Web 3.0 where instead of producers or users, the systems generate content.   We can use semantic technologies to do customized delivery of information, pulling together what we know about the learner (e.g. from a competency map or learning path), about the content available (from a content model), and their tasks (from a job role) and their current context (their location and what’s on their calendar) to serve up just the right information.

This is all possible.   What’s probable?   We’ll have seen major progress in mobile tools, whether companies wake up or it’s just individual initiative to accessorize the brain.   Virtual worlds will also be more prevalent, though not ubiquitous.   Social media systems will be much more integrated into the workflow, and LMS will have become just a cog in the ecosystem, not the ecosystem. The social media will be available whether you’re in-world, in the world, or at your desk.

Semantics, however, are likely to still be nebulous. People are beginning to take advantage of powerful content systems leveraging tagging and flexible delivery, but it’s still embryonic.   There’ll be more pockets, but it won’t be a groundswell yet.

I’m probably still be optimistic, but a guy can hope, and of course strive to make it so.   This is what I do and where I like to play. I welcome more playmates in this great playground of opportunity.

Reflections on Web 2.0 Expo

by Leave a Comment

Last October I toured the expo associated with O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 Conference, and had the chance again this week. Somehow, it didn’t feel as vibrant. Still, there were some interesting developments.

A couple of companies were there who I talked about last time, including Blue Kiwi (who I didn’t visit this time) and Vignette (who I did visit, unintentionally). I was talking to OpenText for quite awhile before it came up that they’d acquired Vignette! Naturally, their DNA is content management, but user- generated content is content, after all. I also talked to Social Text, seeing if they supported user-generation of video (no).

Also, I’d been pinged by the CEO of MangoSpring via the social software for the conference (which didn’t obviously give me a way of pinging back!?!?), so I stopped by the booth for their product, Engage. Which has the predictable mix of capabilities and is (at least initially) totally internally focused.

The internal focus was refreshing, because much of the expo felt marketing focused, without much focus on the ClueTrain of a two-way authentic discussion.

I also was intrigued to see Microsoft showing the Fuse team rather then SharePoint. Fuse seemed to be largely developing internal social media capabilities (enhancing Outlook) and some developer interfaces, but apparently also do some customer work. They were also touting a beta of accessing Microsoft Office docs collaboratively through FaceBook. Trying to counter Google Docs, I reckon, but will FaceBook appeal to the biz crowd?

One of the questions I was asking was about tracking the potential benefits of social media in the enterprise, particularly the outcomes of informal learning: rate of problem solving, products and services generated, etc. Engage has, like Spigit, an idea tool, but no one had a clear answer. Likely it will have to be developed for the group being supported (tho’ I’d like a more generic one if I could).

Nothing earth-shattering, some maturation, still a bit of hype but some more reasoned approaches overall.

Reflections on ISPI 2010

by 2 Comments

Early in the year, I gave a presentation online to the Massachusetts chapter of ISPI (the international society for performance improvement), and they rewarded me with a membership. A nice gesture, I figured, but little more (only a continent away). To my benefit, I was very wrong. The ISPI organization gave each chapter a free registration to their international conference, which happens to be in San Francisco this year (just a Bart trip away), and I won! (While the fact that my proximity may have been a factor, I’m not going to do aught but be very grateful and feel that the Mass chapter can call on me anytime.). Given that I just won a copy of GPS software for my iPhone (after seemingly never winning anything), I reckon I should buy a lottery ticket!

Now, it probably helps to explain that I’ve been eager to attend an ISPI conference for quite a while. I’m quite attracted to the HPT (Human Performance Technology) framework, and I’m ever curious. I even considered submitting to the conference to get a chance to attend, but their submission processes seemed so onerous that I gave up. So, I was thrilled to get a chance to finally visit.

Having completed the experience, I have a few   reflections. I think there’s a lot to like about what they do, I have some very serious concerns, and I wish we could somehow reconcile the too-many organizations covering the same spaces.

I mentioned I’m a fan of the HPT approach. There are a couple of things to like, including that they start by analyzing the performance gaps and causes, and are willing to consider approaches other than courses. They also emphasize a systems approach, which I can really get behind. There were some worrying signs, however.

For instance, I attended a talk on Communities of Practice, but was dismayed to hear discussion of monitoring, managing, and controlling instead of nurturing and facilitation. While there may need to be management buy-in, it comes from emergent value, not exec-dictated outcomes the group should achieve!

Another presentation talked about the Control System Model of Management. Maybe my mistake to come to OD presentations at ISPI, but it’s this area I’m interested via my involvement in the Internet Time Alliance. There did end up being transparency and contribution, but it was almost brought in by stealth, as opposed to being the explicit declarations of culture.

On the other hand, there were some positive signs.   They had enlightened keynotes, e.g. one talking about Appreciative Inquiry and positive psychology that I found inspiring, and I attended another on improv focusing on accepting the ‘offer’ in a conversation.   And, of course, Thiagi and others talked about story and games.

One surprise was that the technology awareness seems low for a group with technology in their prized approach. Some noticed the lack of tweets from the conference, and there wasn’t much of a overall technology presence (I saw no other iPads, for instance). I challenged one of the editors of their handbook, Volume 1 (which I previously complained didn’t have enough on informal learning and engagement) about the lack of coverage of mobile learning, and he opined that mobile was just a “delivery channel”. To be fair, he’s a very smart and engaging character, and when I mentioned context-sensitivity, he was quite open to the idea.

I attended Guy Wallace‘s   presentation on Enterprise Process Performance Improvement, and liked the structure, but reckon that it might be harder to follow in more knowledge-oriented industries. It was a pleasure to finally meet Guy, and we had a delightful conversation on these issues and more, with some concurrence on the thoughts above. As a multiple honoree at the conference, there is clearly hope for the organization to broaden their focus.

Overall, I had mixed feelings. While I like their rigor and research base, and they are incorporating some of the newer positive approaches, it appears to me that they’re still very much mired in the old hierarchical style of management.     Given the small sample, I reckon you should determine for yourself. I can clearly say I was grateful for the experience, and had some great conversations, heard some good presentations, and learned. What more can you ask for?

Designing for an uncertain world

by 9 Comments

My problem with the formal models of instructional design (e.g. ADDIE for process), is that most are based upon a flawed premise.   The premise is that the world is predictable and understandable, so that we can capture the ‘right’ behavior and train it.   Which, I think, is a naive assumption, at least in this day and age.   So why do I think so, and what do I think we can (and should) do about it?   (Note: I let my argument lead where it must, and find I go quite beyond my intended suggestion of a broader learning design.   Fair warning!)

The world is inherently chaotic. At a finite granularity, it is reasonably predictable, but overall it’s chaotic. Dave Snowden’s Cynefin model, recommending various approaches depending on the relative complexity of the situation, provides a top-level strategy for action, but doesn’t provide predictions about how to support learning, and I think we need more.   However, most of our design models are predicated on knowing what we need people to do, and developing learning to deliver that capability.   Which is wrong; if we can define it at that fine a granularity, we bloody well ought to automate it.   Why have people do rote things?

It’s a bad idea to have people do rote things, because they don’t, can’t do them well.   It’s in the nature of our cognitive architecture to have some randomness.   And it’s beneath us to be trained to do something repetitive, to do something that doesn’t respect and take advantage of the great capacity of our brains.   Instead, we should be doing pattern-matching and decision-making.   Now, there are levels of this, and we should match the performer to the task, but as I heard Barry Schwartz eloquently say recently, even the most mundane seeming jobs require some real decision making, and in many cases that’s not within the purview of   training.

And, top-down rigid structures with one person doing the thinking for many will no longer work.   Businesses increasingly complexify things but that eventually fails, as Clay Shirky has noted, and   adaptive approaches are likely to be more fruitful, as Harold Jarche has pointed out.   People are going to be far better equipped to deal with unpredictable change if they have internalized a set of organizational values and a powerful set of models to apply than by any possible amount of rote training.

Now think about learning design.   Starting with the objectives, the notion of Mager, where you define the context and performance, is getting more difficult.   Increasingly you have more complicated nuances that you can’t anticipate.   Our products and services are more complex, and yet we need a more seamless execution.   For example trying to debug problems between hardware device and network service provider, and if you’re trying to provide a total customer experience, the old “it’s the other guy’s fault” just isn’t going to cut it.   Yes, we could make our objectives higher and higher, e.g. “recognize and solve the customer’s problem in a contextually appropriate way”, but I think we’re getting out of the realms of training.

We are seeing richer design models. Van Merrienboer’s 4 Component ID, for instance, breaks learning up into the knowledge we need, and the complex problems we need to apply that knowledge to.   David Metcalf talks about learning theory mashups as ways to incorporate new technologies, which is, at least, a good interim step and possibly the necessary approach. Still, I’m looking for something deeper.   I want to find a curriculum that focuses on dealing with ambiguity, helping us bring models and an iterative and collaborative approach.   A pedagogy that looks at slow development over time and rich and engaging experience.   And a design process that recognizes how we use tools and work with others in the world as a part of a larger vision of cognition, problem-solving, and design.

We have to look at the entire performance ecosystem as the context, including the technology affordances, learning culture, organizational goals, and the immediate context.   We have to look at the learner, not stopping at their knowledge and experience, but also including their passions, who they can connect to, their current context (including technology, location, current activity), and goals.   And then we need to find a way to suggest, as Wayne Hodgins would have it, the right stuff, e.g. the right content or capability, at the right time, in the right way, …

An appropriate approach has to integrate theories as disparate as distributed cognition, the appropriateness of spaced practice, minimalism, and more.   We probably need to start iteratively, with the long term development of learning, and similarly opportunistic performance support, and then see how we intermingle those together.

Overall, however, this is how we go beyond intervention to augmentation.   Clive Thompson, in a recent Wired column, draws from a recent “man+computer” chess competition to conclude “serious cognitive advantages accrue to those who are best at thinking alongside machines”.   We can accessorize our brains, but I’m wanting to look at the other side, how can we systematically support people to be effectively supported by machines?   That’s a different twist on technology support for performance, and one that requires thinking about what the technology can do, but also how we develop people to be able to take advantage.   A mutual accommodation will happen, but just as with learning to learn, we shouldn’t assume ‘ability to perform with technology augmentation’.   We need to design the technology/human system to work together, and develop both so that the overall system is equipped to work in an uncertain world.

I realize I’ve gone quite beyond just instructional design.   At this point, I don’t even have a label for what I’m talking about, but I do think that the argument that has emerged (admittedly, flowing out from somewhere that wasn’t consciously accessible until it appeared on the page!) is food for thought.   I welcome your reactions, as I contemplate mine.

The (Initial) iPad Experience

by 4 Comments

I’m usually a late adopter of new technology, largely because I’m frugal. I don’t like to spend money until I know just what the value is that I will be getting. So, when I heard about the iPad, I wasn’t one of those who signed up in advance. Which isn’t to say that I didn’t have a case of techno-lust; I am a geek, a boy who loves his toys. And, after all, I am on the stump about mobile learning.

So, I followed the developments closely. I looked at the specs, and I tracked the software app announcements. And I reflected a lot about the potential learning applications of this new platform.

The decision

What I didn’t expect was to get transfixed by a new possibility: that this device could provide a new capability to me, that of a laptop replacement. When I travel, I use my laptop to work; I write, I diagram, I create presentations, and catch up on email. The iPad, however, was announced as coming with (or having available) software for word processing (Pages), diagramming (OmniGraffle), presentations (Keynote), and email (Mail). It would also, when in range of WiFi, do standard web stuff like browse the web and use Twitter.

It began to look like maybe this device did have a justifiable case, such that m’lady was agreeable. There were some considerations: did I need the 3G version, which would come later, and how much memory (16, 32, or 64 GB)? Given that I already have an iPhone, which would meet immediate email, twitter, and/or web needs when not in WiFi range, I figured I could go with the first one coming out. However, my iPhone at 16 GB is already half full, and I’d likely be adding more apps and documents, so I thought I better go for 32 GB (I also figured with aggressive memory management, I could skip the 64 GB version). So my decision was made, with one problem.

The purchase

I hadn’t signed up for delivery, and now that deadline was being pushed out. And, I had a trip planned before the next shipping date. Now that I’d decided I could use it as a laptop substitute, I already wanted it. I wasn’t frantic, and I hate to wait in lines, so I wasn’t going to queue up at the Apple store. However, I did discover that other Apple retailers would have them, particularly BestBuy, which has a nearby store. So my plan was made: I would swing by there just around opening time, and if there wasn’t a huge queue, I’d see if they had any left. I wasn’t particularly optimistic.

So, after breakfast on the 3rd, I headed out in time to get there 5 minutes before they opened, and while there was a small queue, it wasn’t too bad. I checked it out, and a guy told me that they’d been handing out tickets for the iPad, and they seemed to have plenty. They didn’t come out again before the doors opened, but I knew I’d have my answer, one way or another, in a few minutes. And lo and behold, they had stacks of iPads. My transaction was complete within 7 minutes of the door opening, and I had my new device! And once I tweeted this outcome, I very shortly thereafter had several requests for this blog post! (The Apple lady in the BestBuy said the same thing happened with the iPhone releases: queues at the Apple store, and walkin service at the BestBuy; now you, good reader, are in on the secret.)

I also had to accessorize. BestBuy didn’t have the case, but I got a neoprene one with a pocket. Then Apple did have the case when I called, so I swung by late in the day. The place was packed but they also had iPads left! I also got the display adapter so I can present from it, and AppleCare.

The experience

Now it was time to play. I got it home, connected it to my Mac, and started setting it up. One almost immediate surprise was that it wasn’t charging. Turns out that is not uncommon, you need to have a relatively powerful USB port to both power and synch, and I guess my old laptop isn’t up to the job. However, it was fully charged and I got 2 days of intermittent use before it got close to needing a charge. Still, a bit of a pain to swap the cable between synching and charging… However, it was recognized right away and synched just fine. I made a mistake and synched everything (all photos, music, etc) when I really just wanted the limited set I had on the iPhone, but I was able to rectify that.

And then it was time for software. I’m as frugal with software as with hardware, so while I took some interesting free new IPad apps (solitaire, I confess , as well as weather and news, a calculator, etc), I was more picky with paid software. I did get Pages and Keynote (not Numbers, as I’m not a spreadsheet jockey, tho’ I may well get it if I start getting a lot of Excel sheets). I also got a PDF reader, GoodReader, as I had an immediate need. So far I’ve held off of OmniGraffle (which I *love* on the Mac), as it’s surprisingly expensive and the first reviews suggested it may have speed and interface problems. I’ll keep tracking the reviews, as I have faith in the company. I’m looking for a good note taking option, that will handle both text and sketches and/or quick diagrams, but the one or two examples I’ve found have had mixed reviews.

Finally, the ultimate question is how does it work. And the answer is, very very well. The battery life is almost phenomenal. The display is superb. The overall user experience is compelling. Tweetdeck (Twitter), Safari (browser), and Mail look great and work effectively. And it’s pretty functional; I’m touch-typing this with the onscreen keyboard in Pages on the plane, with the case folded to hold the iPad in landscape, tilted so I can use the onscreen keyboard and still see the screen.

There’s still some software to come (diagramming, note-taking with sketches), and accessories (maybe bluetooth keyboard), but it’s working well for me already. (Update: it was a battle to get this posted!) I’m on a short 3 day trip with just the iPad and iPhone, laptop-less, and we’ll see how it goes. (I do have a pad of paper and a pen. :) Stay tuned!