An overview of multimedia learning concerns when using embedded social media tools, focusing on the iconographic and technical implications of video embedding.

1. EMBEDDING SOCIAL MEDIA

2. WHY THE CONFUSION?

3. WHY THE CONFUSION?

5. AREAS OF APPLICATION

6. AREAS OF APPLICATION
• Video • Links with rich media preview
• Audio • iframed rich media (i.e., pdf,
slideshare, etc.)
• Animation
• Social Media widgets
• Simulation
• RSS Feed

7. AREAS OF APPLICATION
• Video • Links with rich media preview
• Audio • iframed rich media (i.e., pdf,
slideshare, etc.)
• Animation
• Social Media widgets
• Simulation
• RSS Feed

11. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY

12. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
= PLAY

13. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY

14. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
=

15. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
SKIP
=

16. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
SKIP
= FAST FORWARD

17. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
SKIP
= FAST FORWARD
ADVANCE

18. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
SKIP
= FAST FORWARD
ADVANCE

19. VISUAL ICONOGRAPHY
SKIP
= FAST FORWARD
ADVANCE

20. SO, WHY THE CONFUSION?

21. dozens of interfaces for
video embedding

22. dozens of interfaces for
video embedding
ambiguous icons used in
universal settings

23. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY

24. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
using the same embed type for all media integration

25. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
using the same embed type for all media integration
limiting media types based on their embed footprint

26. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
using the same embed type for all media integration
limiting media types based on their embed footprint
disallowing media types to maintain legacy environment

27. using the same embed type for all media integration
limiting media types based on their embed footprint
disallowing media types to maintain legacy environment

28. status quo
format
embed
code
user
experience
consistency
using the same embed type for all media integration
limiting media types based on their embed footprint
disallowing media types to maintain legacy environment

29. METHODOLOGY AT WORK

30. METHODOLOGY AT WORK
Split-attention

31. METHODOLOGY AT WORK
Split-attention
Navigational

32. SPLIT-ATTENTION

33. SPLIT-ATTENTION

34. SPLIT-ATTENTION

35. SPLIT-ATTENTION

36. SPLIT-ATTENTION

37. SPLIT-ATTENTION

38. NAVIGATIONAL

39. NAVIGATIONAL

40. NAVIGATIONAL

41. NAVIGATIONAL

42. NAVIGATIONAL

43. NAVIGATIONAL

44. NAVIGATIONAL

45. NAVIGATIONAL

46. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
using the same embed type for all media integration
limiting media types based on their embed footprint
disallowing media types to maintain legacy environment

47. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
using the same embed type for all media integration

48. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
using the same embed type for all media integration
dull consistency
consistent user experience

49. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
limiting media types based on their embed footprint

50. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
limiting media types based on their embed footprint
limited content choices
less security risk and overhead
less training on proper integration

51. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
disallowing media types to maintain legacy environment

52. PATHS TO CONSISTENCY
disallowing media types to maintain legacy environment
stale technology
limited media integration
ease of deployment
unified training for end user

53. INTEGRATING MEDIA

54. INTEGRATING MEDIA
• Be consistent

55. INTEGRATING MEDIA
• Be consistent
‣ Standardize content delivery

56. INTEGRATING MEDIA
• Be consistent
‣ Standardize content delivery
‣ Limit media channels

57. INTEGRATING MEDIA
• Be consistent
‣ Standardize content delivery
‣ Limit media channels
• Be progressive

58. INTEGRATING MEDIA
• Be consistent
‣ Standardize content delivery
‣ Limit media channels
• Be progressive
‣ Try new media types for effectiveness

59. INTEGRATING MEDIA
• Be consistent
‣ Standardize content delivery
‣ Limit media channels
• Be progressive
‣ Try new media types for effectiveness
‣ If it works, find an integration path