2. A problem in IMS Learning Design To promote interoperability, few services Local tool frameworks like LAMS have much richer tool environment –Easy provisioning –integration of tools with the runtime behaviours, and the authoring environment Maybe we need a learning activity management system “inspired by” LAMS?

3. Widgets Desktop –Apple Dashboard –Windows Vista Sidebar Web –Yahoo! Widgets http://widgets.yahoo.com/gallery/ http://widgets.yahoo.com/gallery/ –Google Gadgets http://www.google.com/ig/directory?synd=open –NetVibes http://www.netvibes.com/

6. Building a Widget Easy to create, so many have been developed User interface defined using HTML and CSS, just like a web page Business logic written in JavaScript Packaged with a metadata manifest that describes how they should be instantiated by the Widget engine

7. Widget engines Widgets can store and retrieve user preferences, make use of network facilities In some cases, also operating system facilities Renders Widgets Handles Widget interactions, typically as a layer associated with the user desktop

8. Standardisation efforts by the World Wide Web Consortium Employ a similar approach with –a tool packaging format –local API –a deployment environment These technologies are the focus of new standardisation efforts by the World Wide Web Consortium

9. Collaboration with Widgets Desktop Widgets are for the single-user –Widget engines are personal not shared –No mechanisms to share a dashboard Web Widgets similar, but context is a public space –more scope for collaboration. –Some collaboration widgets being developed, e.g. chat tools Gabbly and 3Bubbles

10. Why Widgets are potentially valuable with IMS LD Large number of existing Widgets Ease of development Attractive and interactive user interface could improve engagement with IMS LD systems Integration relatively straightforward, building on existing tools and conventions Here is a mock up...

11. Proposed architecture A Widget engine (the Widget Server) as an add-on to CopperCore Combined with the SleD rendering layer The Widget Server –offers a scripting API for widgets –instantiates Widgets required by users “Late binding” approach used

12. Builds on other initiatives Follows initial work of the W3C Widgets specification Combined with aspects of the Apple Dashboard Widget API...but is applied within a web context rather than a desktop context.

13. Proposed architecture... Widget Service API uses only AJAX The architecture is entirely asynchronous Widget Server installs new Widgets to be made available for use in learning designs Widgets can be locked and unlocked –teacher needs to be able to freeze the content of the tool (e.g. Chat, discussion, whiteboard session) for assessment activities

15. Implications for the designer The designer only indicates types of Widgets needed –Uses an extension to the Learning Design Environment –Similar to the existing “service” element. The actual Widget implementation used is dynamically determined at run time

16. Security and privacy Opaque hashcode for contextualisation, no need for transmission of user information Locking completed Widgets minimises brute-force attacks on instance hashes. iFrame for placing the Widget within the browser prevents cross-site scripting Widget Proxy Service helps prevent loading of remote malicious code.

17. The future... We are building a demonstrator Complete working system Uses single-user widgets developed for existing widget engines Together with new collaborative widgets within a learning design environment. V.1 scheduled for December 2007