@dklinger incidentally we just did some comparisons between the 2 and found that both track very well but 2004 has a little bit more data when looking at the interaction reports. You can output your content in each version and test it to see what version works best for you.
as for pass/fail, incomplete/complete, etc. it depends on the test type (review vs. final, etc.) sometimes it’s more about the vernacular you want to show the end users as it’s pretty much the same in terms of ‘done’ vs. ‘not done’.
@lrnlab - I get it. And yes I can test this. But I do want to disagree - Pass/Fail vs Completed and Incomplete seem like different signals depending on what LMS you are working with. One is about the success with a course and the other about meeting completion criteria.
I know I am in “Docebo-land” now - but there should be a most compatible/stable way and a figure it out your own way...way 
.
@dklinger lol, I get what you're saying and yes it does make a difference on how you use which option...what I was referring to was purely from a coding standpoint where it’s about a positive or negative outcome. The choice you make on these options certainly should be related to the content type and expected outcomes...ex: formal test should probably have ‘pass/fail’ whereas a review quiz could just be complete/incomplete...does that make sense?
@dklinger incidentally we just did some comparisons between the 2 and found that both track very well but 2004 has a little bit more data when looking at the interaction reports. You can output your content in each version and test it to see what version works best for you.
as for pass/fail, incomplete/complete, etc. it depends on the test type (review vs. final, etc.) sometimes it’s more about the vernacular you want to show the end users as it’s pretty much the same in terms of ‘done’ vs. ‘not done’.
Hey @lrnlab ! While doing some research for a project I came across this post and was curious what you meant by “interaction reports” here? Were you referring to reports within learn? I know this is an old thread but do you recall what data 2004 was better at tracking?
cc: @daniel.sowter
@pmo yes was referring to the Learn reports…
as for what’s better, 1.2 is a little limited compared to 2004 and API is a little harder to read but has more data. For that reason we prefer 2004
@pmo yes was referring to the Learn reports…
as for what’s better, 1.2 is a little limited compared to 2004 and API is a little harder to read but has more data. For that reason we prefer 2004
Do you all query the LRS often in your operation? If so what sort of data do you tend to pull from the LRS that you can’t find in the Learn reports?
mostly to view user responses
Curious if anyone’s compared editions of SCORM 2004? We implemented Docebo about 4 years or so ago and I was advised at the time by the onboarding rep to use SCORM 2004 3rd Edition. I don’t recall the response when I asked why not use the latest 4th edition, but we’ve been using 3rd edition ever since.
Docebo only accepts 3rd edition so not like you have a choice...other than 1.2, AICC or xAPI
My bad! I mistakenly just assumed 4th edition was supported and never tried uploading a test course using it. Thanks!
