Peer Review

The article presents a clear argument about the need for learner-centered LMS design. The historical framing of tracing LMS development from WebCT in 1995, provides useful context for understanding the evolution of these platforms. The writing is engaging and appropriate for a professional audience. The inclusion of concrete examples (Jill Watson, Hubert.ai) grounds the discussion in real applications and gives readers tangible reference points for understanding AI's potential in education.

• The learning material is under-specified: “humans first” remains rhetorical rather than operational (no constructs, dimensions, or measurable indicators of human-centred learning design).
• The article provides no methodological basis for its claims (no data, sampling, comparative analysis, or engagement with peer-reviewed literature on UX, online pedagogy, or learning sciences).
• The AI discussion risks technological determinism: it frames AI as the mechanism through which responsiveness will be achieved, without adequately addressing governance, ethics, cost, reliability, or unintended consequences for teaching and assessment quality.
• As instructional content, it lacks worked examples (e.g., redesigned course flows, interface mock-ups, or scenario-based demonstrations) that would allow a learner to verify understanding and apply concepts.

The article is brief and readable, which makes it efficient for classroom use as a discussion starter or supplementary reading. It could effectively prompt critical thinking about LMS design philosophy in an instructional design or ed-tech course. It would work well as a "then vs. now" comparison activity by asking students to evaluate how predictions from 2018 have or haven't materialized. It integrates easily into units on LMS selection, user experience design, or AI in education.

• As a 2018 article, learners may require an updated briefing on how contemporary LMS ecosystems and AI-in-education have evolved since the cited examples
• It critiques the “left-hand navigation” paradigm but offers limited guidance on what a human-first LMS looks like in practice (specific workflows, assessment designs, or UI principles)
• The argument is largely illustrative and persuasive rather than evidence-led; students may need supplementary peer-reviewed studies to distinguish informed commentary from validated findings

The article can be accessed with no login, paywall, or technical barriers. The text is well-organized with clear paragraphs and logical flow. External links are functional and provide opportunities for deeper exploration. The UPCEA website appears to meet basic accessibility standards with readable fonts and sufficient contrast. The article loads quickly and displays properly on both desktop and mobile browsers.

• Makes a complex topic (LMS human-centred design) approachable through familiar UI metaphors (navigation panel, database-like design)
• Highlights learner isolation in scaled online learning—highly relevant in contexts where distance education is expanding
• The writing avoids needless jargon, which supports cross-functional readership (faculty, learning designers, administrators)

The visual presentation is standard blog format without multimedia enhancement (no images, diagrams, infographics, or videos to increase engagement). The embedded hyperlinks may lead to broken pages or outdated content given it was written in 2018. There are no interactive elements to promote active engagement with the materials.