[samigo-team] design for extended matching

[Jacqueline Mai Krueger]

Hi Aaron,

If you have the resources to come up with the UI, then go for it. UCT's 
EMI, which seems to be optimized for supporting medical education, will 
meet Stanford's requirements so we don't need to invest more time in 
this area. Some members of the SAMigo working group have expressed 
interest in UCT's EMI so would probably be interested in what you are 
proposing to do to the existing matching question type. The next SAMigo 
working group conference call is Tuesday 10.18 11am (PDT). Call details 
can be found at 
https://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/SAM/Samigo+Working+Group. 
You would be able to receive a lot of useful feedback from the group if 
you can step through your proposal; even better if you have something to 
show.

Thanks,
Jackie


Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
> Jackie,
> Would it possible for you and I to have a quick call on this? I am 90%
> confident that the UCT work is not going to meet our needs. I can
> share some details about what we need  but I think we just want to
> modify the existing matching item to support one to many matching and
> distractors. I was going to have our UX team come up with the UI for
> the authoring and delivery portions but my understanding is that your
> team prefers to do this (which is totally fine with me).
>
> What time is convenient to discuss?
> My number is 540-585-4299 or azeckoski @ skype
>
> :-)
> -AZ
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Jacqueline Mai Krueger
> <jamai at stanford.edu>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi Aaron,
>>
>> Stephen and team at UCT defined the requirements for the Extended Matching
>> Item question type. What they came up with satisfied the requirements from
>> the Stanford Medical School instructors. I know that #1 of your requirements
>> is addressed but not sure about #2. I conducted a usability review of the
>> feature with a Medical School instructor back in February of this year and
>> gave feedback to Stephen but have not seen the feature since so I don't know
>> what progress has been made. I am attaching a spec of the feature that I
>> reviewed back in February to give you a sense of what it looks like. Stephen
>> will be a better person to ask detailed questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jackie
>>
>> Aaron Zeckoski wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jackie,
>> In short, the requirements we are trying to implement are:
>> 1) Allow matches of 1 to many (so A ->  1 and A ->  2) - currently
>> matching is one to one
>>
>> 2) Allow dummy matching values which are wrong if used and should be
>> omitted to get a 100% correct match
>>
>> So the item should include an option to enable matching for one to
>> many items and dummy items.
>> For example: A,B,C and options 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 : A ->  1, A ->  2, B ->  3,
>> C ->  4, C ->  5 (6,7 are unused)
>>
>> If you want to have a quick call to discuss then I am available.
>> My number is 540-585-4299 or I can call you.
>> :-)
>> -AZ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacqueline Mai Krueger
>> User Experience Specialist
>> Academic Computing Services - CourseWork
>> Stanford University
>>
>>      
>
>
>
>    

-- 
Jacqueline Mai Krueger
User Experience Specialist
Academic Computing Services - CourseWork
Stanford University
<http://www.getpostbox.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/samigo-team/attachments/20111011/72523169/attachment.html