Ok, I'll bite. As far as I see it, Bloom's digital taxonomy was an effort to modernize learning taxonomy through a screen instead of a classroom.. except..

It's important to take all taxonomies in context of their origin story, not just this one.

For balanced perspective on digital taxonomies, considering the experience of industry/corporate learning is important - they mostly have fended for themselves, and in doing so I'd say there are as if not more relatable digital taxonomies in industry/corporate training arising from some of the gaps below.

Bloom's is over 50 years old. How we discover, learn, and ultimately master for example by instantly searching online and then trying something out didn't exist then. Being one of the first taxonomies doesn't mean it's best or complete, or the only way. Information (and as a result curriculum) is changing much quicker than it was when Bloom's was created.

I see Bloom's digital taxonomy as an attempt to modernize Bloom's for a snapshot of an anticipated digital age, and to some extent it did set a stage. It was nice for someone like me coming from tech, into EdTech.

Still, Bloom's Digital Taxonomy was created in the early 2000's where digital education largely was early (and to some extent still is) based on a mindset of delivering education from a multimedia DVD with videos. It was early.

I try to remember that there might be limitations which have carried forward by taxonomies that came before the internet was mass adopted, before wifi, or mobile data was that videos and content could only be distributed effectively by DVD/CD. This limiting belief has often codified itself in a lot of downstream taxonomies even when it is no longer relevant, or maybe forgotten.

Yes, some concepts in taxonomies can stand the test of time in some ways - but at some point technologies do so much that they create more capabilities and possibilities that learning taxonomies don't reflect. I think this is why some taxonomies are so generic. Conversely, I think in the real world we see students who can create diy videos in TikTok while traditional learning spins in circles trying to understand itself and grasp the idea that they might be 5-15 years behind. The students are now more digitally literate than the system educating them.

Education believe(d) digital learning technology is putting a camera on a teacher in front a chalkboard and simply recording the classroom. We are not in the 1980's anymore.

At the heart of the digital instructional design relating to academia is while they are looked to as experts, is not a core competency of academia largely based on digital literacy outpacing academics skillsets over the past 10-15 years. Not enough have digital skills or have been supported to have it. There are academic taxonomies instead trying to break down things and tied it back to a traditional curriculum world.

As academic institutions modernize, or not to their demise and natural turn over in the academic workforce, improvements in taxonomies and delivery will happen. The glacial pace of academic progress/deference could be 5-10 years away, and in the meantime people are increasingly comfortable purchasing courses online directly from a subject matter expert who can create their own course.