2222222222222222222 MULTIMEDIA AUTHORING TOOLS FOR ... · Key-words: Multimedia authoring tools, Educational multimedia, Multimedia software review 1. Introduction Since composing

MULTIMEDIA AUTHORING TOOLS FOR EDUCATION: COST vs BENEFITS

THEODORE H. KASKALISNursery Department

University of Western Macedonia3 km Florina – Niki, 531 00. Florina

GREECE

THEODORE D. TZIDAMIS, KONSTANTINOS MARGARITISDepartment of Applied Informatics

University of Macedonia156 Egnatia str. P.O. 1591, 540 06, Thessaloniki

GREECE

Abstract: Since the explosion in multimedia computing, the bet was to work our way towards anintegrated human – computer interaction. Consequently, a generous number of multimedia tools hasbeen created since then always obeying the concept of simpler and easier multimedia development.This article outlines a large variety of products through the prism of low cost and effectiveness.Based on a 44 multimedia authoring tool survey, this article outlines the market status trying to finda multimedia authoring tool that could be used in the educational field. In other words, the whole“fuss” is about finding a tool that is easy to use and cheap enough to serve as a widely accepted toolin education.

Key-words: Multimedia authoring tools, Educational multimedia, Multimedia software review

1. Introduction

Since composing multimedia presentations is aprocedure far more complex than writing plaintext [2] early came the need for special tools.At first, the whole game of multimediaauthoring was played in the area of plainprogramming languages. Despite the power ofthose, that came to a cost as much time andeffort was needed in order to compose a decentapplication. The introduction of authoringlanguages saved the day up to a point;authoring languages worked only within thelimits of a confined set of multimedia-relatedcommands. Unfortunately, the problem in thiscase was the strict standardization of theresults and the inflexibility of the wholeconcept [4].

At last, during the previous decade, authoring

systems came to light. These were – andcontinue to be – more complex develompentenvironments that allow users with no specialprogramming skills to compose multimediapresentations interactively and visually. Thatimplies the use of menus, wizards and othergraphic components instead of old fashionedverbal commands. Of course, developingpossibilities of authoring systems are still farless in comparison to programming languagesdue to the exchange of low level programmingdetails that handle multimedia objects [3] forconvenience. However, not only the formeroffer new, easier ways of executing mostcommon commands, but usually encorporate a“script editor” that simulates the latter, as well.

Analyzing authoring systems further, it has tobe stated that, at first, it was all about applyinginterfaces onto authoring languages andnothing more. This merely meant materializing

1

Proceedings of the 1st WSEAS / IASME Int. Conf. on EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, December 16-18, 2005 (pp94-99)

the idea of combining command modules forexperienced users with GUIs (Graphic UserInterfaces). However, next generations ofsimilar packages were based on differentconcepts [4].

The purpose of this article is to shed somelight on questions like “How much one has tosacrifice an educational multimedia authoringpackage?” and “what basic characteristics canbe expected by an educational multimediaauthoring tool?” In a few words, the wholepoint is to give a global view of themultimedia authoring field while detecting anyblank spots.

2. Data

Table 1 holds basic information regarding 44programs that the current market status has tooffer. The presented data is a small part of afull survey that was held by studying eachpackage separately and standardizing it asmuch as possible. The base of thisstandardization was provided by a notableeffort made by [5] that used tags like Varietyof designed applications, user interface, testquestions, multimedia, communication withother programs, branching and scripting todescribe each package in a collective manner.

The table offers the data in the format“Program / Company / Price”.

Table 1: ProgramsAuthorware

Macromedia

$2999

CBTMasterLessons

SPI

$49

DazzlerMaxDeluxe

MaxIT Co.

$1995

Director

Macromedia

$1199

EasyProf

EasyProf

$1105

eZediaMX

eZedia

$169

Flash

Macromedia

$499

FlyingPopcorn

Parasys

$149

FormulaGraphics

Multimedia

FGX

$49.95

HyperMethod

HyperMethod

$190 - $390

HyperStudio

KnowledgeAdventure

$69.95 -$199.95

InfochannelDesigner

Scala

$359

iShell 3

Tribeworks

$495

Liquid Media

SkunkLabs

$200-$140(academic)

Magenta II

Magenta

$149

MaxMedia

ML Software

$50 - $120

MediaMake&Go

Parasys

$149

Media Mixer

Alchemedia,Inc.

$129

MediaPro

MediaPro

$99

Mediator 7Pro

Matchware

$399

MetaCard

MetaCardCo.

$995

MotionStudio3

WisdomSoftware

$39.95

MovieWorksDeluxe

InteractiveSolutions

$99.95

MP Express

Bytes ofLearning

$49.95

MultimediaBuilder

MediaChance

$60 - 45

MultimediaFusion

ClickTeam

$99

MultimediaScrapbook

AlchemediaInc.

$89

MultimediaSuite

$649

NavarasaMultimedia 4

NavarasaMultimedia

$29.99

NeoBook

NeoSoft Co.

$199.95

2


ODS Players

Optical DataSystems

$229

Opus Pro

DigitalWorkshop

$249.95

OvationStudio Pro

R. I. SoftSystems

$299

PlatypusMultimedia

Author

PlatypusSoftware

$228 - $272

Powerpoint

Microsoft

$229

PresentationPublisher

CMBSoftware

$89.95

PresentationWizard

AlchemyMindworks

$30

Revolution

RuntimeRevolution

$497.5

ShelldrakeDeveloper

ShelldrakeTechnologies

Slim Show

PC WholeWare

$49.95

SuperLink

AlchemediaInc.

$129

Tactic!

BGW

ToolbookInstructor

Click2Learn

$2599

Twin Player 3

CD-ROMStudio

$110

At this point, it has to be stated that all thegathered numbers may vary slightly, due tomarket changes and offers. Additionaly, vaguedata was not processed at all which justifiesthe existence of lacunas in the table.

As one can see, prices vary from $29.99(Navarasa Multimedia 4 by NavarasaMultimedia) to $2599 (Toolbook Instructor byClick2Learn). Whatsmore, some tools seem tooffer themselves at two prices. In the majorityof cases, this happens simply because ofdifferent target pricing by the companies. Forexample, certain software packages are offeredto academic institutions at lower prices. Thesame applies to students, as well.

However, even if we categorize all packagesbased on their lowest price, Fig. 1 shows that,

in most cases, one needs to spend $100 to$1000 for a multimedia authoring tool. Anamount that, usually, cannot always be sparedby a teacher or parent.

Fig. 1: Package prices

In response to that, sometimes there are low-cost software offers that leave a certainpercentage of functionality out of the wholedeal, e.g. a cd / dvd burning utility that can bebought as a cd or dvd burner separately at alower price. This may occur because themarket is still immature for a product that hasso many capabilities (such as the casedescribed) or because of a certain cost that hasto be shifted to the final buyer.

To this category falls the example of mp3encoding. In order for a multimedia authoringtool to encompass the mp3 technology, somecopyright issues have to be dealt with. As aresult, Multimedia Builder (by Media Chance)costs $60 with an mp3 licence and $45without.

Many questions arise from all the above:Where should the benefit standards be setwhen the cost is set to $2600 for a multimediaauthoring tool? Making the question clearer,what would an educator earn – by purchasing acostly program – in forms of classroomassistance? And, mainly, how much should thesame teacher know regarding multimediaauthoring or programming, in order to achievea high benefit/cost factor for that tool?

3. Statistics

Data emerging from the study indicate thatgood multimedia authoring tools tend to bevery expensive while low-cost programs often

3

Package Prices

<$100

$100 - $1000

>$1000


come too specialized to act in an integratedmanner, thus leading to the need for a differenttool for every subject.

The diagrams below give a more completeoverview of the situation that was evaluated.Let it be noted that everything is examinedthrought the scope of functionality andconvenience. Using this as a logical base, acomplete multimedia authoring tool has toprovide all the characteristics that an educatorwith no special IT skills would find useful e.g.supported sound, picture and video imports,elementary text editing, animation, exportcapabilities, etc.

Most of the times, multimedia authoringconsists of the combination of images, soundsand videos. Therefore, it is essential for a multimedia tool to be able to import as manyformats as possible.

Fig. 2: Image formats

Knowing that the 0 to 5 scale is just a matter ofsubjective evaluation (where 0 reflects“inexistent” and 5 reflects “excellent”), onecan deduce that most of the programs (Fig. 2)support an significant number of imageimporting (more than 7 possible fileextensions, to be exact).

Fig. 3: Sound formats

As shown in Fig. 3, most programs have beengraded highly when talking about soundimports. However, even if a percentage of 11%reckognizes only 4 audio file extensions, thismay mean nothing if these extensionsencorporate common formats as mp3, wav,etc.

Fig. 4: Video formats

The sad percentage of 4,55% in Fig. 4corresponds to Motion Studio 3 andPresentation Wizard that offer no videoimports whatsoever. A fact that raises thequestion: “Who would buy a multimediaauthoring tool that supports only images andsound?” Fortunately, 7 packages supportbetween 4 and 8 different video file typeswhich is more than efficient, most of the times.

Fig. 5: Text editor

Fig. 5 betrays the negative example of twoprograms: Slim Show (that supports one – line– editing only) and CBT Master (Lessons) thatdoes offers a text editor; nevertheless, no textimporting is possible. Despite that, themajority supports text editing sufficiently.

4

27,27%11,36%

20,45%

22,73%

18,18%

Sound formats

5

4

3

2

1

0

31,82%13,64%

29,55%

20,45%

4,55%

Text editor

5

4

3

2

1

0

20,45%11,36%

31,82%

22,73%

9,09%4,55%

Video formats

5

4

3

2

1

0

27,27%27,27%

25,00% 13,64%

6,82%

Image formats

5

4

3

2

1

0


Fig. 6: Painting

Fig. 7: Animation

A general view of the most importan aspectsof multimedia authoring is given in Fig. 6 andFig. 7. It is most unfortunate that onlyMacromedia products (Flash and Director)have been rated as “Excellent” in Paining andAnimating.

Fig. 8: Web

Regarding the web, in parallel with the latestevolutionary tactics in the www, someprograms mutated themselves in order to beable to act as network platforms that allowusers to communicate. This allows fileprojection or exchange between the two (ormore) ends.

For example, what if a teacher needs a file thathas probably already been composed byanother teacher? One step further, what if therewere some kind of database where a variety ofeducational files would be stored so that every

educator could choose the one that suits his /her needs? The situation in the field ofmultimedia authoring based on the marketstatus can be seen on Fig. 8.

Fig. 9: Export

Last but not least, there is the issue of theexport of executable files (Fig. 9). Composinga multimedia presentation and projecting it aretwo wholely different concepts: A multimediapresentation is constructed in order to bedistributed to several computers and/orpresented to an audience. If the file can beexecuted by itself, all you need is a computer.On the other hand, if the file needs theprogram in which it was created in order to beexecuted, then things get too complicated:These files can be interpreted only incomputers that have that specific programinstalled.

Of course, there is an intermediate situationwhere you need the program to compose thefile but you only need a smaller program (a“player”) in order to execute it (e.g.Macromedia Flash and Flash Player).

4. Summary – Conclusions

Sadly enough, despite the detail in which thecharacteristics of every tool were gathered, ithas to be reminded that only one sector has notbeen adequately covered: The educational one.And that is not due to lack of analysis butbecause no serious educational behaviour hasbeen found to any of the programs examined.

And this is a real pity, given the fact thateducation is the primary field that couldbenefit from the use of multimedia computing;lessons, interactive courses, multimedia

5

4,55%20,45%25,00%

18,18%

15,91%

15,91%

Painting

5

4

3

2

1

0

4,55%13,64%

22,73%

22,73%

22,73%

13,64%

Animation

5

4

3

2

1

0

43,18%

15,91%

2,27%38,64%

Export

5

4

3

2

1

0

54,55%

45,45%

Web

5

4

3

2

1

0


tutorials and much more could be a small partof the material produced by educators. But, inorder for that to be feasible, there has to be away to produce every-day applications forclass “consumption”. A tool that is:

• Easy enough for a person with no specialcomputer skills. A multimedia authoringtool that can be dealt with in a singleweekend without the need of books,tutorials, lessons.

• Cheap enough for anyone. Because it isonly then that every educator that hasspotted the need for a multimedia authoringtool will take up the opportunity and decideto invest money and time.

Therefore it is only natural that, from theabove, derives the following question: Why isthere no open source representative among the44 programs examined here? Shouldn't therebe an educational multimedia authoring toolfree to use, distribute or even alter at will? Foronly in the open source community can a toolfor this purpose be found: Cheap as it can beand open to anyone.

The inexistence of such a tool leaves anobvious gap in the educational field, even if avariety of needs can be covered by the existingcommercial multimedia packages. And, bythat, there is no implication that the existing

software is low-quality. On the contrary,commercially available tools have beendesigned and implemented aiming to adifferent audience [1]. However, they arefound incapable to serve a purely educationalaim.

References:[1] Agnew J., Palmer G. (1992), The Right

Tool for the Job: A Quest for the PerfectAuthoring Package. In SIGDOC '92: The10th Annual International ConferenceProgram and Registration, Ottawa,Canada, 253-258

[2] Bulterman D., Hardman L. (2005),Structured Multimedia Authoring, ACMTransactions on Multimedia Computing,Communications and Applications, 1 (1),89-109

[3] Henry S., Bodnar. R. Jr. (2000), Metricsfor Multimedia Languages, Conference onSoftware Maintenance and Reengineering– Zurich, Switzerland

[4] Preclik J. (2000), Authoring Tools, InSafrankova J. (Ed), The 9th AnnualConference of Doctoral Students, Prague:MATFYZPRESS

[5] Preclik J. (2002), What authoring tool isthe best? In Safrankova J. (Ed), The 11th

Annual Conference of Doctoral Students,Prague: MATFYZPRESS

6


Documents

2222222222222222222 MULTIMEDIA AUTHORING TOOLS FOR ... · Key-words: Multimedia authoring tools, Educational multimedia, Multimedia software review 1. Introduction Since composing