I took my first tour of the tool and frankly i'm very concerned at this development for a number of reasons. I would say the whole dev process of Quizzes.next was poorly conceived in order to fit into an LTI. I think a bad decision was made early on its dev and that decision has affected the entire implementation.
1. Navigation. It has been mentioned here before that navigation is not good. It breaks UI/UX:
2. Frame within frames? who still does that now? again this is to fit the LTI
3. Quizzes.next in the assignment, menu but not in the Quizzes menu? Again a hack in order to use the LTI functionality of the Assignment to access Quizzes.next
4. Functionality has been lost, ungraded surveys no longer exists. And this is meant to replace the existing quiz? The ungraded survey wasn't perfect but I'd have preferred to have had it than nothing.
5. Circle of death while items load from the external LTI. Classic quizzes was faster. How is this an improvement?
These are very serious issues that need addressing, navigation is broken in a number of ways and the functionality available is reduced.
Hi @paulrettey_ceg , have you seen the prioritization exercise here, Quizzes.Next User Group, for Quizzes.Next? There are a number of features I would like to see in Q.Next as well, so am encouraging everyone I can to complete the exercise to provide feedback for the development team. Hopefully some of these features will be added soon.
All the best!
Somebody had to say it!
If the same time (about 4 years), money (God only knows) and resources (considerable) had been devoted to improving the legacy quizzing engine; it would be an industry best!
I know there is much said about not replacing the legacy engine until parity is achieved or better, but having the quiz lost in an assignment with clumsy access for course creators and students alike, tells me this product will never gain parity regardless of offered options and was just an ill-conceived idea from the start. A classic example of, "It looked good on paper". And this is from someone who has considerable respect and admiration for the original project leader.
Boondoggle that should be scrapped! It happens. It happens in every industry, and for almost every company.
Now it's time too climb down off my soapbox.
Thanks for this. The whole quizzes.next struck me as off key for Canvas as they have been doing some good work on the rest of the software.
I will make time to look at this and put forward my views here so that the Quizzes.next doesn't end up being a step backwards. Like I said I am very concerned and will be talking to our CSM on this to ensure our voice is projected into real world meetings.
I'm hoping Canvas understand that this isn't a smart development and has artificial aims that don't sit within the context of the the work they've done elsewhere. Canvas Plagiarism Framework is a good piece of work to my mind, not perfect but it has the right direction in trying to better integrate an LTI. Quizzes.next is off key with the way its being driven to use an LTI.
All the best
Thanks for resharing Eric, I hadn't seen the results!
Would be helpful to have an open ended box added to this too(!). My #1 vote has to go to the Access Code being visible. We wanted to pilot Quizzes.Next with some faculty in the Fall but until that is fixed, we can't use it in any proctored courses...the password is clearly visible to students. There are just a handful of deal-breakers that could really change the direction of my current impression of the tool.
Encryption is good, clear text passwords not so much.
Great piece Paul and points very well made.
I talked about the functionality aspects in 17 Features I wish were in Quizzes.next which as an Director of eLearning and EdTech integrator concern me more in terms of sharing with my staff.
Almost none of these (as far as I can make out) appear on the priorities list which further disheartens me as I think Canvas has lost its way/focus a little in terms of digital pedagogy.