     |
6.3.3. |
|
6.3.3. |
We shall now consider the types of authoring systems available, and the means by which they may be classified. We shall consider authoring systems in the broadest sense as any development tool suitable for producing CBL packages. This includes 3GL's as well as authoring systems developed for the CBT industry such as Guide and Authorware Professional.
One means of classifying authoring systems is by the programming demands that they make upon their authors. Many authoring systems assume that authors will posses a well developed "programming mentality", and their applications consist of rigidly defined events in logical sequences and hierarchies. This is obviously especially true of any 3GL, but also many authoring systems that are supposedly intended for "non-programmers" require some degree of this type of mentality.
Iconic programming languages represent symbolic constructs graphically rather than as textual commands, but conceptually they are virtually identical to the conventional languages. Most authoring systems contain a BASIC- or Pascal-like scripting language, and the use of this may be essential or it may only be required by relatively advanced users. A few authoring systems have no capability for programming in the conventional sense of the word, and thus no requirement for any programming ability.
Another means of classification is by the development style which may or may not be primarily script-based. In some authoring systems (eg 3GL's or the Microsoft Help System) applications are constructed by entering text into an editor, and then compiling or interpreting this. Some authoring systems have a graphical interface design editor, but require extensive scripting to describe interactions. Some authoring systems attempt to dispense with a script entirely and use iconic constructs or menu commands for almost all operations. These spectra are summarised in Figure 6.1 which shows the positions of a number of authoring systems within this taxonomy.
| Figure 6.1. A number of widely used authoring systems compared in terms of their authoring requirements (programming / non-programming) and development style (script or non-script). |
|
|
We will now consider authoring systems under the following headings:
