As in (Wharekura-tini, et al., 2004) Moodle has limitations, notably it lacks SCORM support, and its roles and permissions system is limited. However, these limitations can be fixed, and are part of the project roadmap in Moodle site.
Table 10.7 reveals that ATutor, while strong in features and usability, has serious architectural limitations, and although some features in ATutor warrant further investigation, it may be that candidates will opt for Moodle.
|
Product Category |
A Tutor |
ILIAS |
Moodle |
|
Architecture |
Weak |
Complex |
Good |
|
Implementation |
Weak |
Complex |
Good |
|
Interoperability |
Bad |
Good |
Average |
|
Cost of ownership |
Medium |
High |
Low |
|
Strength of the community |
Low |
Medium |
High |
|
Licensing |
GPL |
GPL |
GPL |
|
Internationalization |
Weak |
Average |
Good |
|
Accessibility |
Excellent |
Bad |
Average |
|
Document transformation |
No |
Average |
No |
ILIAS, while promising, has a complex architecture with tight coupling that is hard to work with and debug. The code is new, and lacks maturity. The developer community of ILIAS is small outside the core team. Nevertheless, some features in ILIAS deserve to be reviewed before opting for Moodle.
Moodle has a good architecture, implementation, inter-operability, and internationalization, and also has the strength of the community. It is free and its accessibility is average. On the other hand, it has limitations, as mentioned above.
- 1365 reads
