1. Visibility of System Status:

   • In LTI 1.3, users, including Admins and Course Authors, cannot ascertain whether the connection was successful or not. They need to refer to live results to determine the status.

   

   

2. Match Between System and the Real World:

   • In LTI 1.1, it is accurate, but in 1.3, users cannot see the result.

3. User Control and Freedom:

   • In some cases, users have the capability. However, when the user hides the LTI, automatic visibility persists, even though the user may prefer the title to remain hidden. In this case, the user lacks control over this particular component.

   

4. Error Prevention:

   • In 1.3, there is no error prevention. If something doesn't connect correctly, users don't know it until they view it live. It doesn't tell them where the error is for correction.

   

5. Recognition rather than Recall:

   • LTI is not easy to recognize because it is inside the advanced section.

6. Flexibility and Efficiency of Use:

   • It is easy for advanced users, but for beginners, it is a little bit difficult because there are some sections with names that are different in your LTI platforms. Maybe more explanation is needed for this group, and there are some configurations that could be hidden and shown only when the principal set is active. For example LTI URL in 1.1 is the same a Launch URL in 1.3

7. Aesthetic and Minimalist Design:

   • The settings could be activated in a hierarchical form to avoid unnecessary information.

   

8. Help Users Recognize, Diagnose, and Recover from Errors:

   • There is no acknowledgment of errors in the fields, it would be good to discuss the technical feasibility of this because it would be of great help to people who are adding a new LTI.

   

9. Help and Documentation:

   • The studio has a description for each setting. Maybe tooltips in each one with more information

Priority Issues:

1. Error prevention is difficult; knowing the problem could be improved. It would be better if the platform could specify what and where the problem is.

Critical Issues:

1. In 1.1 and 1.3, although they are different, some components could be similar, for example, the view of LTI in the X-block. It is important that users can see how their component looks before publishing the course.

Major Issues:

1. LTI could be easier to find (This solution is mentioned in Confluence). the solution is add a new component button of LTI.

Minor Issues:

1. The information could be more specific in some cases, for example, if your LTI platform lacks certain information for setting purposes. For example, there are cases in LTI 1.3 where the tool in this case (Paddlet) in the free version allows sharing content through a URL and this is not really a limitation, to share content, it would be good to explain that they can add tools with just a URL (Everything will depend on the tool) but it would only be like dynamic content without cross-referencing information such as student data or grades.