This is such a cool concept (and so wonderfully executed) that I have to steal it for myself… or someone. An annual report for a company of one. I’d have to make up a lot of data that I’m not detail-oriented enough to keep.

[Linktribution: Iconolith]

elearnspace: Do Generational Differences Matter in Instructional Design:

I think, in this instance, the consideration of varied design approaches has been tied to the wrong variable (generational differences). The greater area of change and impact is found in the habits, activities, and needs of learners (not based on generations, but on how technology creates new opportunities for learning networks far beyond the narrow domain of classroom walls).

Given my oblique defense of Prensky and his ilk, George might be surprised to find that I agree wholeheartedly with what he says here. I think there is a significant, and perhaps too convenient overlap, between the emerging group of 12-22 year olds and a particular set of habits in using– and inclinations/disinclinations toward various participatory web technologies (which is why the results of the recent UCL report, which I will comment on later, isn’t particularly surprising). Sometimes it makes sense to consider these, sometimes it doesn’t. But consideration is very different from “designing for.” And consideration is very different from treating any particular age group as a monolithic block. The idea of the “net generation” resonates because of this kind overlap… but I also know that being of the net generation doesn’t necessarily mean those definition fit– just as being older doesn’t mean one can’t effectively be characterized in all the same ways.

I look at this whole question much as I do the idea of designing for other particular cultures. There is no doubt in my mind that there are some characterizations that can be made about particular groups, such as Native Alaskans, and their approach to learning. In some contexts it makes sense to discuss technology and learning in this way. But 1) we have to realize that when we do it is just a shorthand, not a strict definition and 2) most of the time it is probably more efficient and productive to talk about much more important and delineated groups that overlap and are often mistaken for this one, most often those characterized by specific socio-economic status and/or access. Of course in this latter example, where race so often gets mixed in with the idea of culture, option #2 is generally just safer and less prone to diversion anyway.

Peter Merholz has posted an article with generous scans from the manual for the first 128K Macintosh (yes, kids, I said 128K). How quickly we forget all of the conventions and metaphor that have become second nature: scrolling, the desktop, using the mouse in various ways.

And I quote:

“Design consists of creating things for clients who may not know what they want, until they see what you’ve done, then they know exactly what they want, but it’s not what you did.”