Thanks

Good..

nice..

Useful

Great!

good!

good

good

bien

none

Good

good

good

Cool

good

good

good

good

good

UwU

ر

N

This was a great overview of the fundamentals, useful, interesting assignments and a lot of opportunity to practice. It was highly enjoyable and I like how the professor chose to explain things. Knocking off two stars for two reasons:

- The peer review system is broken. I rarely received useful feedback. In general, I think a paid course should have a professional give professional-grade feedback, but in the absence of that possibility, the least they could do is place a minimal word limit on the review sections so that people have to type more than one word to qualify as a review. In addition, people who don't pay attention to the rubric mark down your assignments and can screw with your grade as a result

- The quality of this course was not matched by the next in the specialization, which is Intro to Typography. So people who signed up for this course and then pursued a specialization based on the quality of this course will likely be let down by the very next course in the track. Intro to Typography is totally self-guided, is not at all dense with content (could be done in two weeks EASILY), and is almost completely grade reliant on peer reviewers, which as I pointed out, are of questionable quality. There is really no quality control for the work you complete in this course and it should be free as it currently exists.

The last assignment caused me CONFUSION. I mean, due to the unclear assignment requirements, we cannot review composition for composition's sake. For example, I did use two squares as the assignment asked, but I changed the transparency of them, so they form a new square when overlapping. And people think I used three squares and thus not following the instructions. And many people used a small circle and a large circle putting at the center vertically to form a scale composition, and you have to give them 3 points because they followed the instructions, but they actually did not do much in terms of composition. Though I got 3.5 scores by two people ( not very bad）, I'm still frustrated, and I hope the assignment requirements could be clearer.

Die Kursinhalte sind zum großen Teil lehrreich. Trotz Vorkenntnisse konnte ich einige Inhalte sinnvoll aufnehmen. Jedoch empfinde ich das Bewertungssystem komisch. Mir fehlt hier eine gewisse Ernsthaftigkeit. Ich würde vorziehen von Profis, wie Dozenten in relevanten Tests bewertet zu werden, da ich nur so abschätzen kann, wie ernst ich das Feedback nehmen soll. Die Vergabe der Punkte ist für mich schwer nachvollziehbar: 50 % allein für das Einreichen einer PDF mit der korrekten Anzahl an Seiten! Zudem ist man der Gefahr ausgesetzt, andere Teilnehmer nicht korrekt zu bewerten oder selbst unfair und haltlos oder zu positiv bewertet zu werden. Welchen Mehrwert hat dann ein solches Zertifikat?