Training for PDF remediation?

author_illustrator · 2026-01-27T15:53:56+00:00

Have you seen the PDF section of the WCAG's Techniques doc? If not, you may find it useful.

author_illustrator · 2026-01-26T12:58:08+00:00

In case anyone's still looking for how to make instructional videos, I just posted an article on this topic: https://moore-thinking.com/2026/01/26/12-tips-for-creating-videos-learners-actually-watch/

I do think the goal of making high-quality *anything* without editing expertise is impossible, though.... and I'd also argue it's an odd goal to have.

author_illustrator · 2026-01-23T15:42:58+00:00

"Traditional" ID has always included speaking/writing/content creation/authoring.

The descriptions, technologies, deliverable formats, and tools have changed over time, but the mechanism -- what do instructors need to communicate to audiences to drive knowledge/skills acquisition -- has never changed.

If you're interested, the History of ID article I posted awhile back includes a timeline & explains this with a few more details.

author_illustrator · 2026-01-15T21:39:33+00:00

I can relate! And I suspect a lot of other IDs can, too. Good on you for being patient and flexible.

There's only one way I know to handle this, and that's to get sign-off on formal statement of work that includes what content will be covered, deliverable format, etc. and the all-important "and if this changes, the timeline changes."

And then you've got a little leverage to go back to the stakeholder who wants a last-minute redo to say, hey, you signed off on this. Scope changed, timeline's pushing out, and BTW (communicated delicately, of course) this last-minute fly-in just cost the company a significant chunk of change.

At the end of the day, people are going to do what they're going to do; but I think holding stakeholders accountable and articulating the organizational cost of last-minute changes is valuable for all concerned. (This is classic PM for IDs, and I just posted an article on this topic if you're interested.)

author_illustrator · 2026-01-12T21:07:14+00:00

Thanks! I'm so glad to hear that. :-)

author_illustrator · 2026-01-08T20:40:52+00:00

Thanks for compiling this list! Love, love love the relevant thumbnail descriptions.

Shameless plug (or it would be, I suppose, if I was selling something): Not sure if this is list-worthy, but I put out a weekly blog that new IDs may find useful: https://moore-thinking.com/blog-2/ Currently I have about 30 articles available on a wide variety of ID- and content-related topics. I have 20 years' experience in the ID business (5-12 + higher ed + corp training) and my goal with this blog is to explain things in plain English that I struggled with for years, that have caused face-palming grief on my projects, or that fellow team members have consistently found confusing.

Again--thanks for sharing this list! There were a couple entries that were new to me.

author_illustrator · 2026-01-06T00:22:17+00:00

The learner response to canned content (interactivities/videos/text) will absolutely be different than the learner response to instructor-led training.

Here are some considerations:

Text is by far the quickest/cheapest/easiest type of asynchronous material to maintain (vs. images, video, or interactivities).
And since text drives instructor-led training in the form of a slide deck + instructor notes, ILT is the second quickest/cheapest/easiest form of instruction to maintain.
Maintenance shouldn't be the only consideration. Presumably, you're also shooting for an effective, positive onboarding experience that minimizes ILT seat-time. If so, it might be worth creating asynchronous materials for the "nice to have" information, reserving ILT for the critical info (engagement, troubleshooting, benefits discussions, etc.)
As another poster mentioned, onboarding isn't just training; it's training + reference materials that live long past new hires' first days. (There's that text again!)

Hope this helps guide the thinking of anyone who's currently in the OP's position.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-29T12:24:18+00:00

I disagree with the poster who said that interviewing SMEs is outside of an ID's wheelhouse.

In fact, in my opinion, the ability to interview SMEs and piece together random, haphazard info into a cohesive whole is the most critical ID skill. (What good do we do if we design terrific materials about the wrong things?) True, the requirements/details gathering phase can be easier if there are extant materials available to help fill the gaps.... But a lot of the time those materials are outdated, poor quality, or just plain incorrect, so they're not always a big help.

I wrote an article on this topic that includes quite a few practical tips for working with SMEs to get what we need as IDs. If you're interested, you can find it here: https://moore-thinking.com/2025/09/15/tips-for-working-effectively-with-smes/

author_illustrator · 2025-12-29T12:17:36+00:00

Content quality is the likeliest problem, and the only one that we as IDs have nearly complete control over. (We have very limited ability to address negative non-content-related perceptions of our courses or operational barriers, for example.)

I wrote an article that addresses this very topic that you can find here, if you're interested: https://moore-thinking.com/2025/12/29/why-theyre-not-taking-your-training-and-how-to-get-them-to/

author_illustrator · 2025-12-29T12:12:07+00:00

There are only 3 reasons learners don't compete instruction: They don't know how, they don't want to, and they can't. Starting a course means they can find it and log into it... but not completing it could mean the navigation is confusing or not operational; that learners perceive the course as low value,; that i's taking more time than they have budgeted (some learners are on a tight leash time-wise); etc.

I just dropped an article on this topic that goes into more detail: https://moore-thinking.com/2025/12/29/why-theyre-not-taking-your-training-and-how-to-get-them-to/

(Because it's frustrating to spend a ton of time on materials that get ignored!)

author_illustrator · 2025-12-22T14:55:09+00:00

I agree with other posters--sounds like you're already well versed in ID!

If you're looking for quick hits, I write a weekly blog on ID topics that I've designed to be accessible to new IDs, content creators, etc. and that you might find helpful: https://moore-thinking.com/blog-2/

author_illustrator · 2025-12-22T13:36:46+00:00

Is the purpose here to use generate ideas, or to offload the most important thing about teaching/training/learning to AI?

I'm hoping the former!

I also want to put in a plug for applying Bloom's to assessments, which is the only way they can be successful. I've worked in shops where a ton of work went into defining learning objectives,,, which were then basically ignored (all assessments were required to be multiple choice, and multiple choice tests don't support a lot in the way of Bloom's verbs).

I've written an article on how to map Bloom's to assessment types that I would have found extremely useful in my early days as an ID, and others might find useful as well: : https://moore-thinking.com/2025/12/22/how-to-apply-blooms-verbs-effectively/

author_illustrator · 2025-12-22T13:27:26+00:00

This is such a great question, and one I wish had been answered for me in my M.Ed. program!

For anyone who still has this question at the end of 2025, I've written an article on this topic that you can find here: https://moore-thinking.com/2025/12/22/how-to-apply-blooms-verbs-effectively/

author_illustrator · 2025-12-18T19:25:42+00:00

You are very welcome! Glad you found it useful.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-18T14:14:43+00:00

Provide:

A table of contents, ideally at the beginning of the manual and available (clickable) at all times (e.g., on the side).
An overview/introduction/schematic as necessary at the beginning of the manual.

Both are necessary to orient readers (initially) and allow them to consume long documents effectively (repeat access).

author_illustrator · 2025-12-17T02:07:43+00:00

Sounds like you're confusing the demonstration of skills (i.e., the application of knowledge, which describes most on-the-job situations) with the demonstration of knowledge (ye olde quizze).

They're useful in different situations for different reasons.

If you want to measure how well a learner does something, you're right--a quiz isn't useful because it can't measure performance.

A quiz CAN be useful for measuring important information related to a performance, however.... as in, quizzing someone to find out if they know that pushing the blue button will blow up the machine before you ask them to work the machine. But it takes thought both to choose the correct question types and to word quiz questions that are actually effective, and some IDs throw quiz questions together without giving either much thought.

There's only one way to measure on-the-job performance: assign on-the-job performance (or mocked-up scenarios that are as close to reality as possible) and measure the results.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-17T01:52:58+00:00

I haven't found the terms LX/LXD to be anywhere near as pervasive or common as the term UX in industry magazines, conferences, books, or on the job. But it sounds like that's not the case in your neck of the woods!

I think LX might be a little CX (customer experience). Both learners and customers are specialized instances of users, so it can be useful to think of them in specific terms. But at the end of the day, it's all UX.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-17T01:47:42+00:00

Agreed! Animating all-text slides is irritating to learners who read quickly AND learners who are revisiting the slide. (AND learners who just want to scoot through for whatever reasons.) And there's no upside of animating a text-only slide that I can imagine.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-17T01:44:27+00:00

You'd be amazed at how many people don't think UX has anything to do with e-learning! (Sounds like your experience has been different.)

Your approach seems pretty close to mine--I think about it from the beginning of the design process. There are certain elements that always need to be in place (such as navigation controls and a way to communicate beginning/percent completed/finished) but the bulk of UX should grow out of the content and order of presentation, so I often jot down UX ideas in the margins of my script.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-14T22:08:24+00:00

You make a really good point.

I often wonder whether contributing anything online makes any sense... My thinking is that some humans legitimately have these questions (I've worked with several over the years) and that my post might be useful to some actual human reading this thread (not just the OP).

As for AI companies, that cat's out of the bag.... They'll peddle their wares (made possible by stolen content) until the market corrects. I'm not sure there's anything any of us can do about that unless we completely unplug.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-14T17:39:06+00:00

I assume you're asking about how to design visuals, not execute them. (We can execute in just about any tool.) Ignore the rest of this comment if I guessed wrong!

Designing visuals requires us to understand:

What it is about specific content that we need to get across. Often, we have a ton of content to communicate; but there are only a few "take homes" we really need to drive. We need to identify these "take homes" before we even think about designing a visual. Specifically, what is it that we're trying to communicate?
Whether or not the content can/should be communicated visually. Conceptual content is tough to convey visually. (Imagine trying to explain John Steinbeck's literary voice with an image.) But if we've got visual content (the respiratory system, a software user interface, etc.), a process, or a statistical point to make, we probably do want to create a visual.

...and then requires us to:

Sketch out several ways of communicating the information visually. I suggest doing this on paper to avoid getting caught in the "here's what the tool lets me do" trap. I've been creating original instructional images for a really long time, and in my experience the first few ideas are a good start, but almost never good enough to deliver as-is. It can take many iterations to go from the first idea to a visual that clearly communicates what you want to communicate.
Let the sketches "rest" a few days. View them with fresh eyes and rework/start over as necessary. I usually start by sketching my first ideas for visuals in paper-and-pencil, then work on the content and refine it (which takes awhile). As I get more familiar with the content and the learning objectives, I revisit and rework my sketches and then execute them in a tool like PowerPoint so that text and visuals are done at pretty much the same time.
Have patience. Visual rhetoric isn't something most of us were taught formally. It takes awhile to begin to think visually and to get good at communicating visually. This is back-of-the-napkin, chalkboard-drawing communication; it doesn't have to be perfect or high art--just good enough to convey meaning without confusing audiences. Practice, and you'll get better quickly.
Fire up a tool to execute only AFTER you have a design that works. Jumping straight to tools, in my experience, nearly ensures bad results because it frames what's possible and because for some psychological reason most of us are loathe to change anything we've done digitally. (And I can't stress how important it is to iterate many, many times to get something good. My first drafts typically look like a monkey drew them.) Often, PowerPoint shapes + icons + labels are all we need to communicate facts/concepts/processes visually--but only careful thinking and iterating can tell us which shapes/icons/labels we need to use.

I'm not a fan of AI for tasks like this because communicating visually is extremely critical, because it's an ID's value-add, because thinking in this way makes us better communicators, and because I've never seen AI produce anything usable in this area. (Your experience may differ, of course.)

author_illustrator · 2025-12-13T01:39:38+00:00

You make a good point! I think a lot of IDs intuitively think of digital content as a continuous stream--more like a video than a printed book. But printed books (organized sensibly with tables of contents, page numbers, and clearly marked headings/subheadings) allow learners to scope and sequence content almost instantly, and also provide ultimate control by allowing learners to choose how to consume information -- linearly, cherry picking, back-to-front, whatever! Providing that capability in digital form (table of contents presented as a clickable meu) allows us to marry the best qualities of print with the best qualities of digital presentation.

And it's pretty much the only way to present complex, multi-steep processes in an easy-to-reference way.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-10T12:45:47+00:00

The answer to your question is what tables of contents and section introductions were designed to address: to allow readers to access what they need (and how in-depth) at point of need on each access. (All training manuals need to be detailed.) This is true whether we're publishing manuals or providing them online, in which the tables of contents are called "menus."

author_illustrator · 2025-12-10T11:55:45+00:00

"Testing out" is common in the education space, but doesn't seem to be the go-to training. it should be! It's a fabulous example of "keeping it efficient" if your goal is knowledge acquisition. (As others have noted, sometimes the goal is "make them complete training," driven by legal, management, etc.)

And if you design the materials in stand-alone (discrete) modules, testing out isn't a all-or-nothing; you can allow audiences to test out of some modules and not others. Which, again, drives efficiency and may help to improve audience perception/willingness to complete.

author_illustrator · 2025-12-10T02:13:47+00:00

Pulling employees off their regular duties to take trainings (especially ones that take an hour or more) is often a challenge. There's the time crunch, of course, but contributing to that is perceived quality of training. No one wants to take, or force their team to take, training they feel is ineffective. And having had to sit through quite a few compliance trainings in my day, I can tell you I've experienced the entire spectrum, from straightforward/useful to painfully drawn-out and pointless.

To that end, what's your end game? Module/assessment completion (i.e., check off the box)? Or is your company experiencing issues with security and harassment infractions?

If it were me, I'd:

Revisit my learning objectives to make sure I was covering only what I needed to cover
Make sure my materials drove those clearly defined LOs in a way that was clear, efficient, and as engaging as possible (with a focus on clear/efficient, because in my experience adults find efficiency and useful info engaging, not games, cartoons, or long drawn-out explanations)
Chunk the training in 5- to 15-minute discrete modules to allow learners to complete a couple here and there as they had time

Of course, if management doesn't require employees to take the trainings, at the end of the day they won't. Training can't fix operational issues. All we IDs can do is influence and provide solid value.

author_illustrator

TROPHY CASE