Think about the last mandatory training course you took. Harassment prevention, cybersecurity awareness, safety procedures — doesn’t matter which. Now try to remember three specific things it taught you.
If you’re like most people, you can’t. But I’d bet you remember the button you clicked to get through it: Next.
That’s not a you problem. That’s a design problem — and after 22 years of building training for federal agencies and Fortune 500 companies, I can tell you it’s the most expensive open secret in the eLearning industry.
What click-next training looks like
You’ve seen it. A slide of bullet points. A voiceover reading the slide to you. A Next button. Another slide. Another Next. Forty minutes later, a five-question quiz you can pass without having paid attention, a completion certificate, and a records system that says you’re “trained.”
The organization got a checkbox. The learner got nothing. And somewhere, real training budget was spent turning a PowerPoint deck into a slightly fancier PowerPoint deck with a play button.
How it gets built
Nobody sets out to build forgettable training. It happens for predictable reasons:
- The brief was a content dump. A subject matter expert hands over a 60-slide deck and the instruction is “make this into eLearning.” The deck gets converted faithfully — same slides, same order, same wall of text — because on a tight timeline, faithful conversion is the path of least resistance.
- Completion is the only metric. When success is defined as “everyone finishes by Q4,” the fastest path to success is a course nobody can fail. Friction gets engineered out — and friction is where learning happens.
- Interactivity got confused with decoration. A tabbed interface, a flip-card, a drag-and-drop matching game. These look interactive, but they’re navigation, not decisions. Clicking a tab to reveal text is just a fancier Next button.
Why it matters more than you think
For most training, click-next is merely wasted money. For compliance training, it’s worse — it’s compliance theater.
The point of harassment training isn’t the certificate; it’s that a manager recognizes the situation in front of them and handles it correctly. The point of safety training is behavior under pressure. When training produces completions instead of competence, the organization has purchased legal paperwork while the actual risk — the thing the training exists to reduce — is untouched.
And learners aren’t fooled. Every eye-rolling, speed-clicking employee is learning one real lesson from click-next training: this organization doesn’t take this topic seriously, and neither should you.
What the alternative looks like
The fix isn’t more animation or a mascot. It’s replacing information delivery with decision practice:
- Scenarios instead of definitions. Don’t define quid pro quo harassment on a slide — put the learner in a conversation where a manager hints a promotion depends on a date, and make them choose a response.
- Branching with consequences. Wrong choices shouldn’t produce a red X and a “try again.” They should play out — the complaint doesn’t get filed, the situation escalates — so the learner feels why the right answer is right.
- Realistic failure. A course you can’t fail is a course you can’t learn from. Knowledge checks should require the judgment the job actually demands, not recall of a bullet point from two slides ago.
- Shorter, sharper, spaced. One 40-minute annual course loses to four 10-minute scenario sets spread across the year — same seat time, radically different retention.
This is exactly what tools like Storyline are actually for — branching scenarios, variables, adaptive paths. Using them to rebuild a PowerPoint is like buying a flight simulator to watch a slideshow about airplanes.
“But that costs more”
Somewhat — good design takes design time. But the gap is smaller than most buyers assume (our PowerPoint conversion pricing guide breaks down real numbers), and AI-assisted production has shrunk it further: AI narration alone removes weeks of re-recording logistics from scenario-heavy courses, where scripts change constantly during review.
The real comparison isn’t cheap course vs. expensive course. It’s money that bought a checkbox vs. money that bought changed behavior. One of those is 100% waste at any price.
None of this requires sacrificing compliance requirements, either — scenario-based courses can and should still meet Section 508 accessibility standards; accessibility and engagement reward the same thing: intentionality.
The one question that reveals everything
If you’re buying training this year, ask one question during your next project conversation: “Show me a course where the learner can make a wrong decision and see what happens.”
If the answer is all tabs, timelines, and Next buttons, you’re looking at a checkbox. If they light up and start showing you branching scenarios — that’s a team that builds training people remember.
At DGS Designs, we’ve spent two decades turning content dumps into decision practice for federal agencies and enterprise clients. Contact us if your training deserves better than a Next button.
Related items
Ask this question in an eLearning Facebook group five years ago and you’d get a genuinely
Ask an instructional designer today to build a course, and there’s a good chance the first