Just to be clear. I think Moodle and .LRN have slightly different markets. I think .LRN is more focused on organizations then individual teachers and we have strengths in terms of being able to support large organizations and diverse organizational structures. Our community (both .LRN and OpenACS) has enjoyed a large long-term organizational level participation and I want that to continue. There is no reason we can’t do that and have happy teachers too. Although, it seems easier to steal Moodle’s UI then replicate their community. Our community gives us some real advantages. Let’s combine our advantages with their UI.
Ernie, I have a bunch of places above where I didn’t really understand what they were looking at. Can you enlighten me on any of them based on her talk?
There are many many things we can do to improve .LRN, but getting what we have into the hands of evaluators seems like the low hanging fruit. As Ernie Says:
After Sabine's presentation I had a spoke with her about .LRN and some of the packages that .LRN has for learning materials (survey, assessment, LORS, etc) as well as the work that the UNED fellows have been doing with Alfanet and all. Of course she was unware of all these.
I bet the ranking of .LRN would have been much better if she would have seen these packages in her out-of-the-box .LRN installation.
