When it comes to shaping how teams learn, choosing the right tools can make all the difference. For organizational decision-makers and eLearning developers, the challenge lies in finding technology that checks all the boxes for their learner needs. Recently, I took Adobe Captivate 12 for a spin to evaluate it's fit for a small project, and here's what I discovered.
Jumping Into Captivate 12
With experience doing advanced web and eLearning development, I was excited to see what Captivate 12 could bring to the table. For the project I was creating, I wanted to see how Captivate could handle three primary project needs:
- Responsive design that works seamlessly across devices
- Advanced interaction capabilities powered by JavaScript
- Sophisticated branching logic to craft authentic decision-making scenario
For context, I tested Captivate 12 over several days while developing a custom dashboard with interactive elements. Before we begin, I should note that this review is based on my first impressions over a few days. It's possible that some of the limitations I mention are achievable with further exploration, but if I'm having to go deeper to look for workarounds, then they may have a steeper learning curve than I would want for a quick adoption decision. With that said, let's see how Captivate 12 stacked up.
Deep Dive into Captivate 12
The Promise of Responsive Design
Captivate 12 advertises itself as a leader in responsive design, and on the surface, it delivers. Content adjusts dynamically to different screen sizes, making mobile learning more accessible. One standout feature was how well it handled video, seamlessly scaling to different breakpoints as expected from a truly responsive tool. This makes Captivate a strong contender for video-heavy eLearning projects.
However, the rigidity imposed to maintain responsive layouts severely limits customization. While trying to create a custom dashboard, I found the tool's container structure stifling. It restricted the ability to seamlessly incorporate branding elements and custom graphics that didn't fit the mold of their template layouts. Even basic customizations like placing a logo in a specific location or creating a unique layout required complex workarounds or weren't possible at all. This limitation can undermine the learner's experience and confine the learning designer to the template's constraints.
Development Challenges
Captivate 12's container-based layouts draw inspiration from modern web development principles. However, while the approach promises flexibility, it fails to deliver the true adaptability that modern web development offers. Styling is the best example of this. While Captivate does offer basic styling capabilities—allowing you to set brand colors, font styles, and basic button appearances through its built-in style settings—it lacks true CSS-like reusability that lets web developers update styles across an entire site with a single change. This lack of reusability adds unnecessary repetition, which increases development time and maintenance effort. While this limitation is common among eLearning authoring tools, Captivate 12's web-based architecture presented an opportunity to break free from these constraints. Instead, Captivate maintains the status quo here.
Given the lack of reusability in the design mode itself, I thought there might be an opportunity to take advantage of object manipulation through JavaScript. However, this was another area that fell short. Captivate's lack of object inheritance limits true object-oriented programming functionality. Its continued reliance on accessibility IDs for scripting interactions – a practice used by other tools as well – is workable but far from ideal. It can create compliance risks by interfering with screen reader functionality.
Even more frustrating, Captivate's templates added unnecessary audio functionality that interfered with my custom code. Despite having no audio in my project, Captivate automatically included audio players that generated inspection errors and prevented my JavaScript from running properly. While more troubleshooting might have resolved this, it added unnecessary complexity to what should have been a straightforward task and prevented me from fully exploring Captivate's JavaScript potential.
Workflow Efficiency
Efficient project organization is crucial in large-scale eLearning development. Storyline, another popular authoring tool by Articulate, offers a scene-based structure that allows developers to compartmentalize content, making updates straightforward. For example, in Storyline, you can organize content into logical scenes like "Introduction," "Core Content," and "Assessment," making it easier to navigate and modify specific sections. Captivate 12, on the other hand, arranges content linearly. Developers have the option to group slides together, which aids organization slightly, but this setup becomes unwieldy as projects grow in complexity, particularly for training programs requiring clear navigation and intricate branching scenarios.
Another limitation was the lack of freeform question slides not tied to a points system. There is a way to indicate that you don't want the slide scored by declaring it a knowledge check slide, but again you are locked into a template for how this appears. This means that if you want to create custom practice activities or informal knowledge checks with unique layouts and interactions, you'll need to build them from scratch rather than using the built-in assessment features. A true free-form slide would have been a welcome addition for my project. I was able to build this myself, but it took more time than I felt necessary.
Additionally, Captivate has removed master slides in an attempt to break free from the traditional "slide" model. While this may align with its vision of moving toward a more fluid design approach, it also removes a key tool that developers rely on for maintaining consistent branding and layout across projects. Master slides traditionally allowed developers to make global changes to design elements like headers, footers, and navigation controls from a single location. Without replacing this functionality with something akin to reusable web-based classes, this step feels drastic, leaving developers with no real options for optimizing their workflow. This limitation adds to the time and effort required for large-scale projects.
Publishing and LMS Integration
Captivate 12's HTML5 output delivers on its promise of true responsiveness, making it particularly strong for mobile delivery. The content automatically adjusts to different screen sizes without requiring separate versions for different devices. This is a notable advantage over Storyline, which requires developers to create and maintain multiple versions of a project (mobile and desktop) to achieve comparable mobile user experience.
When it comes to LMS integration, both Captivate and Storyline use SCORM for tracking assessments and completions, providing similar capabilities for learning management system deployment. This means organizations can confidently deploy content from either tool to track learner progress and completion.
Market Positioning
Captivate 12's capabilities align closely with Articulate Rise—both offer responsive design through modular components with limited customization options. Rise succeeds because it's clear about its purpose and limitations. When evaluating Rise for a project, developers can quickly determine if it's the right tool for their needs.
Captivate 12, however, presents itself differently. Its development interface suggests robust capabilities on par with Articulate Storyline, featuring object states, JavaScript integration, timeline controls, and overlay options. This creates an expectation of advanced development possibilities that the tool ultimately struggles to fulfill. While Adobe may expand these capabilities in future updates, the current disconnect between the tool's presentation and its actual functionality can make it challenging to evaluate whether it's the right fit for specific project types.
Should You Choose Captivate 12?
I did not attempt to explore all of Captivate's functionality, but I did a fairly deep dive focused on my specific project needs. While Captivate 12 introduces some innovative features, it's not without its drawbacks. For newer developers or those creating relatively simple eLearning experiences, Captivate can be a strong option. Its templates and responsive capabilities make it easier to create content without needing advanced technical skills or custom programming.
A significant advantage worth noting is Captivate's lower price point compared to Storyline. For organizations primarily creating information-heavy modules with read-and-click interactions, simple interactions, like card flips, or standard quizzes, Captivate's "plug-and-play" style can save both time and money. There's no need to invest in a higher-end product if your learning needs align with Captivate's strengths. Additionally, video-heavy projects that benefit from seamless scaling across devices can leverage Captivate's responsive design strengths effectively.
However, for programs that demand high-level customization for branding, sophisticated decision-making scenarios, efficient workflows for large-scale projects, or custom gamified learning mechanics, Captivate 12 might pose more challenges than benefits.
It's also worth noting that while Captivate Classic offers functionality more comparable to Storyline, Adobe plans to sunset Classic in2027. Organizations need to carefully consider this timeline when planning their authoring tool strategy, especially if they need to maintain or modify their eLearning courses beyond this date.
Final Thoughts
Adobe Captivate 12 represents a shift toward modernizing eLearning development, and it shows real promise in areas like mobile-first design and video handling. For the right projects—particularly those needing responsive design with straightforward interactions—it could be an excellent choice, much like Articulate Rise in its space. However, its development interface suggests capabilities more in line with advanced authoring tools, which can make it frustrating to discover its actual limitations during project evaluation.
For my specific project, I found its shortcomings outweighed its benefits, especially compared to tools like Articulate Storyline, which I believe better meet the demands of advanced eLearning development at this time. However, I am eager to see where Adobe takes this program over the next few years as it gathers feedback and iterates on its functionality.
