Really good introduction to interactive design

good tips for testing experiments

Interesting materials.

I like it!

This course as much content in it and it's difficult to have an holistic idea how it all fits together. Some videos are taught having the same problem like, for example, some tools/themes are presented without us knowing what they are for. E.g., Chi-squared test and null hypothesis. Only after a while we understand their use. This bring a lot of overhead to us who are learning.

Some videos seem to have been re-worked over time and present cuts or jumps.

As for assignments, they should be better worked because some questions are not clear or misleading regarding the criteria that you want to evaluate.

For example, I already reported that in Question 2. and 3. of the assignment for the 3rd week. The example you give is a short introduction with two problems: 1) "I did the website", which can make the participant not to be at ease to criticize and 2) we're no evaluating the participant performance but the website. Next, you ask us to rewrite the introduction, which we do with those two problems in mind. Now, when we do the peer review we realize that you're expecting for us to rate the new introduction based on having "early prototype" and "user feedback". The original problems just seem not to count. Only by chance you can eventually write the new introduction touching the points that count for grading.

I like the content of the course. I feel I have learned a lot, especially working with the Chi Squared test. However, there was an example that was not clear on week 3 – Comparing rates. The example refers to comparing two buttons in a home page in order to improve traffic. The data provided was confusing because the Instructor refers that 118 people sign up the “learn more” button over a week. He calculates the chi squared value with 118 sign-ups for the “learn more” button. Then he said that 119 people sign up over a week for the same button, and he calculates the chi square value with this data. My suggestion is to review that video. Thank you.

Definitely improved from the first course of this specification. Better feedback on errors regarding quizzes' questions and still really interesting assignments for peer review that help you to learn. Still missing a document or a file with all the notes that one can take away and use as a reference guide, hence only 3/5.

It was a good course overall, but some of the material was very complex and would require more than 3 weeks of study. I am not sure whether it will be useful in a real life, especially calculating Chi-squared and such. I also wish the professor would simplify the language in which he speaks in the lectures.

The visual design teachings could have a few more exercises that teach color choice and more details about typography styles. For example, emotions can be communicated with colors ...

It started off very interesting. Then it kind of fell apart during the chi-sqaure part. Some of the examples feel a bit dated and could use a bit more modern design.

I didn't like the way contents were organized. It was too much information in a very short time.

Several errors in lecture and lack-luster assignments decreased my perception of value.

If you don't pay the fee to get the certification, you can't do the assignments :(

Very interesting, but I found it a little bit confusing.

don't feel like I'm learning from the videos.

Slow review process (can be).

OK

I feel that this specialization is not focused enough on developing portfolio pieces. One portfolio piece at the end of an 8-month course does not seem adequate to me. So I wish we focused more on developing high fidelity work - in addition to the need-finding, user research, sketches, short weekly assignments. This high fidelity, digital work could even be optional, but I need some guidance on what work to develop and how the overall process should look.

Even being allowed to enroll in the capstone before completing the first 7 sections would be helpful.

The review is kind of about what you are looking to get out of these classes. If you just want to LEARN about UX and human centered design, then it's a 4-5 star course. But if you want to PRODUCE some great work that will help you land a job in the industry, it might not be for you.

Should go into more depth - esp with Visual Design.

This course wasn't good. Many of the assignment instructions and questions were poorly written, and students clearly had trouble understanding what was asked of them. The assignments also weren't very deep or imaginative, and some of them requested very specific answers relying in keywords from the lectures rather than ensuring that the students had really understood the concepts. The design principles were introduced at such a surface level as to be just silly rather than useful. This was kind of a waste of my time.

Don't be a fool and expend any money in this courses. If you are lucky, someone will review your assignments, but chances are you are not going to receive enough reviews to pass the course, just like me. I have payed for two months subscription and have received nothing at all, as my course is not complete, although I have submitted all of my assignments.

I think that is a poor course; a lot of much theory and little practice; is better read a book and see youtube. It doesn't meet my expectations.

Interesting topic, however I quitted. Video lectures were recorded almost phrase by phrase, making it too hard to follow the contents properly

Simple & Clear , Handsome teacher!