What’s the real cost of eye candy?

When you’re designing a practice activity, such as a mini-scenario, your time and money are limited. So what should you prioritize?

A stakeholder might insist you create lots of graphics, also known as “eye candy.” However, making those images cuts into the time you need to design a challenging activity.

The cost of eye candy is often a too-easy activity. When I’m cranky, I’d say a lot of elearning suffers from this. It’s strong for the eyes but weak for the brain.

What would happen if we invested less in eye candy and more in designing deep challenges? Would this really bring about the apocalypse, as some stakeholders appear to think?

Let’s compare two activities

I created two activities to help instructional designers practice the initial conversation with their client. The goal is to steer the conversation away from “Make me a course” and toward “Help me solve this performance problem.” What happened when I spent hours creating graphics for one of the activities?

Activity 1: Graphics and slides ate my brain

I made this first activity many years ago using Keynote (like PowerPoint) and converting it to HTML5. The process was similar to using a slide-based tool.

Give it some time to load; it’s old and a little stiff. If you’re reading this in email or a feed reader, you may need to go to the blog site.

 
This is a weak activity. It’s way too easy and shallow. It was also a pain to build, requiring a separate flowchart to keep track of the branching. I’m embarrassed to say that it took me six hours to write and produce this, even though it has only six decision points. You can read more about the development in the original blog post.

Activity 2: Just one photo and lots more brain

Here’s the same type of conversation, but developed with just one photo and lots more branching. Can you win the client and avoid an information dump? Click the image to play the activity.

Screenshot of scenario-based training for instructional designers

I spent eight hours writing and producing this, two hours more than I spent developing the much simpler scenario. The simpler scenario has only six decision points and can be clicked through in seconds. This activity has 57 decision points, requires actual thought, and encourages exploration.

Edited to add: 57 decision points doesn’t mean players must make 57 decisions. It’s a branching scenario. There are multiple paths with multiple decision points. The average result is reached with 10-12 decisions. You can see the flowchart here.

I saved time by using a tool that makes it easy to manage branches and that combines writing and production (I first used BranchTrack and then switched to Twine for more control over the look and feel).

Another big savings came from not searching for multiple images showing Ann and Luis with subtly different expressions. Since many stock photos show overacted expressions, I probably would have ended up doing a custom photo shoot with some friends, cutting drastically into my design time and spending others’ time as well. However, for the type of discussion in the scenario, seeing every eyebrow twitch isn’t necessary, so photos aren’t necessary.

It’s not just the tool, it’s the priorities.

Using the right tool definitely helped — it was far easier to manage the branching in Twine.

However, for the second activity, I also decided that I didn’t need to find multiple photos, create an order-taker meter, and strain my limited graphic design skills to arrange everything on the slide. I quickly found one stock photo, lightened it a bit, and spent the rest of my time writing a more subtle, realistic challenge.

Test it on your learners!

You might be thinking, “But everyone expects our stuff to look snazzy!” Maybe they’re used to bling, but they could discover that they prefer more substance.

Try testing a subtle, text-only decision-making activity on some learners. Maybe try a branching scenario that requires them to deal with an employee called Bob, whose “Just kidding!” snarky comments are inspiring complaints, but don’t include photos of Bob or anyone else. If it’s a strong activity, people will immediately dig into it, chasing after the best ending. When they’re done, ask them, “Do you care that you never saw a photo of Bob?”

I do that in my scenario design course. I send participants to a downright ugly text-only scenario without any preparation. When they come back to the discussion, they want to talk about the ending they got. When I ask if they cared that there was no picture of the person in the story, almost everyone says they didn’t care. They were too interested in solving the problem. They easily imagined the person, and some say that a picture would actually interfere.

I’ve seen it work.

I’ve also seen this work in the field, with cross-cultural training in the US Army. You might be familiar with the graphically rich Haji Kamal activity. That was one part of a large project. We also developed several other branching scenarios that were just text printed on paper, with directions like “Turn to page 9” next to an option. The paper scenarios were popular with the same demographic, at one point inspiring so much discussion that the bell rang to end class and they didn’t want to leave.

So before you believe “They’ll reject it if it doesn’t have slick graphics!” test a strong text-only scenario on your learners.

Photos can add problems

Unnecessary photos of people can even create problems. Each person in a photo is a specific race, age, and gender, which someone might interpret in ways we don’t intend. Each person is wearing clothes that can quickly look dated or are too culturally specific. I’ve heard that many stock photos look “too American.”

What I’m not saying

I’m not saying, “Lots of eye candy is a sign of a fluffy activity” or “Lack of eye candy is a sign of a challenging activity.” I’m saying that we all have a limited budget of time and money. The amount of that budget that we spend on bling takes away from what we could spend on writing challenging, subtle activities.

Also, obviously, some activities absolutely require graphics, such as questions like, “Which end of this widget needs realignment?” And more emotionally-rich scenarios need real photos of people with subtle expressions or even video, because in the real world we’d base our decisions partly on the emotion that people seem to be expressing.

I’m also not talking about information presentations, which can easily require graphics. I’m talking about practice activities that require people to make realistic decisions, which I think should be the bulk of what we create, once we’ve determined that training is really the solution.

What do you think? Are you pressured to include more eye candy than you think is useful? Have you tested a text-only practice activity? Let us know in the comments.

Meeting room photo by Complete Interior Design via Compfight cc


Scenario design courses open for registration

Get the most from action mapping and learn to design challenging activities in my live, online course. You’ll build skills that will help you create challenging, realistic mini-scenarios and branching scenarios, and you’ll immediately apply what you’re learning to a real project on your job.

Sessions are scheduled for many time zones, including Australia and New Zealand. The course tends to sell out, so you might check it out now so you don’t miss out.

Share
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Comments

  1. Very interesting article. I regularly have in mind whether it’s worth spending so much time finding and editing images for elearning activities and whether this is the best use of time. I do agree with some of your points, however, I think that text-only based scenarios can easily suffer from the ‘wall of text’ engagement-killer, where the learner quickly switches off because there is nothing visually interesting to keep their attention. They see a large requirement for reading and are bored after the first sentence – especially if the scenario is about some boring meeting they might have to have with a manager in another office. Snore-worthy in real life, let alone in a pretend scenario.

    So although I agree that every eyebrow change isn’t necessary to show, I think it helps if the learner can see some sort of interest in completing the scenario. Some people are happy to read large paragraphs, but I would suggest that after 57 different choices the best of us would get bored. We all know that lack of engagement is a serious problem in elearning, and moving away from click and read is something we have all worked really hard to move past. I personally hate over-exaggerated expressions on photographed models – it looks cheesy and dated. But there are other ways of visually expressing a scenario. And sometimes the time spent is worth it to keep the learner engaged.

    • I see your point of view. I too hate walls of text. But it all depends on the learner’s motivation. If he/she sees the training as something that will bring him a benefit, that he can apply, he’ll have the courage to read. It’s only a wall of text if I don’t care about it. If I care, it’s a treasure trove of juicy stuff I can use…
      Of course, if you have the budget, great content *plus* good visuals is the best of all possible worlds (as in, it’s better to be rich and healthy…)

  2. I actually gave up after the 2 choices in the second activity. Too much to read to hold reader’s attention. Keep in mind many of us do not read long paragraphs. I do think there needs to be more engaging design in this activity.

  3. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your message is not only mind-opening, but also presented very convincingly (show don’t tell), and extra bonus, entertaining. Your posts are an inspiration!

  4. Good post.

    I used to share the demo below years ago when I talked about how an engaging scenario could get away without lots of graphic design. It’s in line with what you’re saying. http://www.halfbakedsoftware.com/quandary/version_2/examples/firstaid.htm

    I don’t completely agree with the article, though. E-learning is a mostly visual medium so combining the appropriate graphics with engaging scenarios is a good move. Calling the investment in graphic design “eye candy” diminishes its value. It’s not the eye candy, it’s the lack of investment made in creating the visuals to support the content.

    The reality is that course developer and graphic designer are two different roles with different disciplines. I think your post does raise some good conversation about how little many organizations invest in their course development. When instructional designers with little graphic design skills have to do everything in their course the outcome is probably courses that don’t fully leverage the power of great visual communication. My guess is they do spend too much time on the eye candy to the detriment of the quality of the scenario.

    • I agree with your reply. I think elearning developers can develop more than one skill. They don’t have to just be instructional designers or just be graphic designers. They can use the role to expand their skills base. Learn about graphic design if they have a learning theory background. I don’t always think that you need to employ a lot of people to create elearning.

  5. I got bored and frustrated with the second example. It dragged on too long, many of the options looked very similar (just different ways of saying the same things). I’m not even sure how far through I got because there’s no indication of progress or length, which makes the conversation feel endless.

    Not saying the first example was brilliant, it was completely at the other extreme – very brief and not a lot of meat to it.

    I get where you’re coming from with this. The second example didn’t need all the different expressions, in fact I pretty much ignored them in the first example in favour of reading the text, but the second example lacked a feeling of progression. There was no discernible end in sight, which is demotivating when you’ve clicked to make a bunch of decisions and all you get is more of the same. I think a balance between the two would be ideal.

  6. Cathy,

    Enjoyed this post. I put together a simple demo of a text-only decision-making activity using TWINE and Articulate Storyline 360 on my site. If your readers are interested, they should stop by and take a look. This demo requires some knowledge of the Simple Triage and Rapid Treatment (START) method to make the right decisions. Thanks for stopping by and commenting on the post Cathy!

    http://bridgehillls.com/using-text-only-decision-making-activities-vs-using-eye-candy/

  7. I appreciate an important point made in this discussion that e-learning is mostly a visual medium. Calling it eye candy does seem to diminish its value or importance. At times, a primarily text based blog is applicable and sufficient, although this is not often the audience’s preference. Let’s face it that most audiences whether in corporate or educational settings expect e-learning to con-tain a good amount of visual content. This is because visual mediums are more interesting and seem easier to learn content from, as opposed to a lot of text reading. Today’s online audiences from internet marketing to student populations prefer rich visual content. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that instructional designers do not disappoint them.

  8. Cathy,
    I enjoyed the comparison between the two activities. I think it is important to remember that if the activity pertains to you or your business it would hold the participants attention longer. I did find myself lost in the wordiness of the second activity, but if it was associated with my profession or interest I would have been more attentive. I agree that some activities in e-learning can become overwhelmed with visuals, taking away from the true scenario or message and leaving the participant focused on the supporting material. Don’t get me wrong, images are very effective and support visual thinking, so something needs to be in place to create aesthetic balance. When I was working as a graphic designer, it was important for the viewer to solve the message quickly and effectively, simplicity can be powerful and not overwhelming. Stock photographs can create unnecessary emotions, and if its eating away at your time, it doesn’t make sense to utilize them. I stand by the saying “less is more”.

  9. Shanta Chester says:

    I’m of the opinion that we live in a world that has imposed upon us the need for compelling visuals. In their absence, learners find it difficult to connect with the information that is being presented. However, in contrast, I do agree that graphics can send a message that you, as the designer, never intended. For example, I have created instructional material and spent hours sifting through stock photos in order to find graphics of children from multiple ethnicities. My goal was to promote diversity because I feared seeming partial to one ethnicity if others seemed underrepresented in my work. In hindsight, the amount of time that I spent searching for graphics was much more significant than the time I spent actually devising the text. In essence, it’s always ideal to strive for a balance between the use of graphics and text. Ultimately, it is important to consider whether the graphics add meaning to the text or hinder it.

  10. Ian Blake says:

    Thanks, Cathy.

    A very timely post for me as we are creating a scenario to be used as part of an instructor led session. We had initially decided to use talking head video as the main way of delivering the material, but have now sat down to reconsider the pros and cons!

Speak Your Mind

*

Scenario design online course

Learn more