Home

Quest Net + An Authoring System

by Sloan-C

ABSTRACT
This article describes the principal features of an interactive multimedia (IMM) and Internet authoring tool, Quest Net+, and gives an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses. A simple, short comparison with Authorware is also included.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Perspective
I describe the authoring system Quest Net+ with the biases of my background experience. I have worked with interactive media since the advent of laser discs and interactive video (1979), and have produced 17 major products for business, the intelligence community, school districts and publishers. The work has taken me from Singapore to Norway, from India to England. From this experience I have developed impatience with those, new to interactive media, who create and hype "helps" or "aids" which are poor duplicates of the tools of the past.

B. Authoring "Languages" vs. Authoring "Systems"
Another of my biases is that many of the "authoring systems" are simply special-purpose, programming languages. While programming is a legitimate way to create interactive multimedia (IMM) products, media creators should not be forced to become programmers by inadequate tools. Also, several current authoring approaches have grown out of other software. Some have evolved from data management tools, from computer testing programs, and even from animation software. For instance, Macromedia’s Director was originally a 3-D animation program that has grown into an authoring tool using "Lingo," a special purpose programming language or script. My contention is that a legitimate authoring system should not require any more programming than a word processor. None of us would purchase a word processor and then be happy about writing code to, say, create a table; yet that is exactly what many authoring packages require. For example, we demonstrated an automated authoring approach in 1982 that required no programming. The computer "read" our script pages and generated the interactive program on its own.

II. QUEST NET+ "ACADEMY"

My principal interest in Quest Net+ is its ability to create complex forms of IMM without any programming. While writing code within Quest is possible, it is not required. Also, its user interface strategy is intuitive and not based on a programmer’s view of the world.

Allen Communication http://www.allencomm.com, the creators of Quest, markets several of their tools to academe in a package called the Academy which consists of the following:

• Designer’s Edge Pro (a pre-authoring design tool, the results of which transfer directly into Quest)
• Quest Net+ (the actual authoring tool)
• Manager’s Edge (a tool for managing the use of resulting software; particularly useful for training and educational programs)
• Synergy and Net Synergy (tools that provide near, automated authoring for delivery as courseware or via the WWW)
• Software Updates (as new releases are created they are automatically sent out)
• Training (at Allen Communication Headquarters)
• Technical Support (telephone and web based)
• Self instructional tutorials (and updates as these are developed)
• CD-ROM in support of the tutorials (and updates as these are developed)
• Instructor’s Manual.

As a system it is quite complete. Its focus, admittedly, is instruction. That is, Quest and sister tools all have as their principal function the creation of instructional materials. However, games and information kiosks, for example, can be readily created with Quest.

A. Quest Net+: Its Metaphor or "Look and Feel"
Quest Net+ is organized with a flowchart metaphor where each project is composed of flowchart elements, branching, modules, frames and objects. The Project or Title level is seen in Figure 1. Here, different modules are seen which, in turn, contain "frames" filled with "objects."

Figure 1. Title Level Flowchart.

Objects can include virtually anything, but especially text, graphics, photos, animations, audio clips, video clips, interactions and Computer Managed Instruction information. In Figure 2 the comments and notes can be added anywhere in the flowchart sequence.

Figure 2. Branching at "Title" Level: Flowchart Analogy.

With Quest Net+ you define the structure and create the branching. One way to define branching is simply to draw lines between modules or frames. Each frame is identified with postage stamp icons of content to help keep track of what is being built.

Important advantages to the flowchart metaphor are that:

• Objects and events are grouped together in "frames" (which could just as well be called "interactions")
• Complex branching is easy to setup, see and connect, or change
• Objects and actions are tied together, one-to-one (Some authoring approaches locate information for a page or frame in several, distinct places requiring you to search for needed information.)

While the branching is initially identified by simply drawing lines between elements of the flowchart, the specifics of each branch are determined within dialog boxes (see Figures 3 and 4). The first box asks what Quest should look for to initiate the branch and the second wants to know where it should branch if more than one option is available.

Figure 3. Branching Conditions.

Figure 4. Branching Destination.

B. Quest Frame Level
The power and flexibility in Quest is seen at the frame or interaction level. The author enters objects into a frame to create the look, call an audio file, run animations, and set up interactions. As each object is created it appears on a linear list (lower left corner in Figure 5). Objects are created What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWIG) as you enter them so it is easy to see exactly what each interaction will look like. A very important feature in Quest is the ability to make any object "smart" so that it can be used in a variety of interactive ways. Each object also has its own attributes dialog box so that each can be modified to fit your specific needs. If you choose to write code or use Quest’s "C Coach," the code also appears in the object list.

Figure 5. Frame with Object List and Graphics Library Dialog Boxes.

Quest’s objects and associated actions (e.g., branch or run a video file) are tied to each other, one-to-one. Clicking on an object will call it and its associated action. Some authoring programs make you hunt for objects and their associated actions.

C. Quest "Template" Tools
A number of templates exist within Quest. In addition, users can create their own templates and add them to a library. There are interaction templates, menu templates and others.

Figure 6. Menu Templates, Including Branching Logic.


Figure 7. Interaction or Branching Templates.

To use them you simply open the template library and drag/drop what you need onto your work space.

D. Quest Text Tools
The text tools within Quest are standard and contain the features that we have come to expect. If you click on text in a frame a dialog box opens with text editing tools. As you close the dialog box, changes made in the text immediately appear in the frame, WYSIWYG. However, as you work with text in the dialog box you do not see the final result--it is not WYSIWIG until the dialog box is closed. This is one of the few weaknesses in the program. Another is that, in the present versions, there is no control over tabs or indents. You have to work with spaces to arrange the text look. On the positive side, the text tools permit easy changes in color, typeface, drop shadow, text rotation, timed text and hypertext links or web connections.

E. Quest Programming Tools
While you do not have to program in Quest to create a variety of complicated interactions, it is possible to enter "C" code directly into the object list. If you care to use it, a "C Coach" is provided which consists of a dialog box that lists the code for operations and functions found in "C." You name a variable, provide required parameters or values and the code is entered into the object list for you.

Figure 8. Sample Program—Frame with "C Coach" and Code in Objects List.

F. Time Required: All Activities
Those who are new to the creation of IMM, especially IMM courseware, may be surprised to learn of the time required. Earlier efforts reported 200 hours of programming and debugging for every hour of instruction produced. Quest appears to require 60-80 hours of data entry and debugging for each hour of instruction. Time is required for designing, story-boarding and media creation in addition to authoring. A general idea of time requirements is provided in the figure where the percent of all development time is laid out in a pie chart. You will notice that the more time-consuming tasks include media creation, authoring, storyboarding and content outlining. For video intensive products, it is common to use 80% of the project budget and 90% of project time on media creation and authoring.

Figure 9. Time Required: All Activities.

III. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON

A. What I Learned about Quest Net+
1. Problems and Weaknesses
Most of the problems I experienced with Quest stemmed from my inexperience with a new tool. However, my Media Player wasn’t set up properly for MPEG1 file playback, which caused several false starts. Once the computer was correctly configured, media files played back as expected, with the occasional exception of MPEG1 files.

Another unpleasant surprise was the general protection faults or memory conflicts with other programs. Evidently, some terminate-stay-resident (TSR) programs got in the way. One conflict existed with FoolProof, a security software package. Quest also experienced "hiccups" when older versions of Quicktime were found on the same machine.

Quest weaknesses included:

• Present text entry is not presently WYSIWYG. Its appearance on the screen is WYSIWIG once you close the dialog box.
• Quest will not always handle MPEG1 files with all the Quest-supplied, user controls. Other video files do not experience this problem.
• Quest is built for a PC platform, only. However, it does publish to HTML.

2. Strengths
From my perspective and experience, Quest exhibited the following principal strengths:

• It is much more intuitive to learn and use than other tools, which are based on programming.
• Results from the front-end design tool, Designer’s Edge, imports directly into Quest or into HTML and Java formats. You only do the design and data entry once.
• There was friendly and timely response from Allen Communication’s technical support.
• The Academy tutorials and manuals were clear, comprehensive and frequently updated.
• Designer’s Edge was a big help (after the learning curve).
• Title and frame level authoring are easy to understand.
• Entering & controlling objects is intuitive.
• Libraries allow storage of multiple
  • Objects and/or
  • Frames and/or
  • Templates or Interactions.
• Actions are viewed on the object list and are tied to the object(s) with which they deal.
• You can make most objects live or available for interactivity. (This provides much flexibility!)
• You can code with the "C Coach," directly into the objects list.

3. Other Nice Features
Features that I found useful, or which provided a range of flexibility were:

• True Multitasking
• ActiveX Server and Container Support
• ActiveMovie support
• Simplified Creation of WWW based Training
• QuickStart Templates for New-Title Creation
• Multiple, Author-Definable, Resources
• Web Authoring
• Can Shade an object: add a shadow to any object
• Anti-aliasing on text
• Filled text (solid colors, gradient fills, bitmaps)
• Optional, pre-defined audio & video controls
• Angled text and bitmaps (at any degree)
• Timed Saving and Auto Saving preferences
• Full online documentation
• Fast object-refresh painting
• Animated cursors
• Spelling checker
• Multiple-color fills
• Video and Animation file transparent colors
• Range of good transitions/dissolves

B. General Comparison with Authorware
Authorware is among the authoring tools that we have used and are teaching. A comparison of them produced these reactions:

• Authorware’s tools are easy to use.
• Authorware’s one-directional flowchart is good for simple applications but not for complex ones.
  • Linear action branching to linear action is easy to accomplish.
  • Other branching is complex to handle, especially tracking each individual’s use or backing up the path an individual followed.
• The one-directional flowchart isn’t what it appears.
  • The flowchart look can be initially confusing.
  • It is a visual representation for building subroutines, it is not flowcharting.
• Libraries have limited storage-recall capabilities.
• Dialog boxes and code are not obviously related to the objects they affect.

IV. CONCLUSION

A. Reminder: These are Just Tools!
With all of the hype and potential of IMM, we may forget that tools alone do not make a well-designed product. Buying and learning Quest Net+, Designer’s Edge, or any authoring tool does not guarantee good results; media message design & carefully considered IMM strategies are required. In addition, a graphic design eye and skills are needed. Quality control is a need that is regularly pushed into the background under the pressures of deadlines or the excitement of working with new tools and media. It is also perilous to overlook formative evaluation of the product during its development. Many problems can be fixed early if simple formative evaluation procedures are followed. And, of course, there’s nothing like experience. Since many of us do not have the experience or the range of skills and knowledge required to create an IMM product, assembling and working with a team should be a cardinal requirement.