The lectures get you through the basics in a clear, understandable way.

But the auto-grader was really a bad idea, that got the lecturer into a lot of trouble for very little gain if any.

It seems to me that peer-reviewed assessments, with proper instructions, are better suited. Apart from being more reliable and less frustrating, I think the learner can really get more out of it.

Professor was good and insightful but the course was extremely poorly curated and obnoxiously boring.

I had to grit my teeth hard to go through this course. The information provided in this course is unnecessarily extended by a huge margin and all of the information can be skimmed down massively.

The course is good for beginners, thats true, but there is no operative support with technical issues. I wasted 3 days waiting for "Final Quiz" from 3 week of HTML course will be available to complete because images of the quiz questions were not visible at all.

More interactive assignments using the parser would have been great. As it stands, the quizzes had mostly relevant content, but the lessons were anything but engaging. Having Colleen talk at the camera for 5-12 minutes per video got tedious really quick.

It may be a 5 weeks course with a more slow learning, because we see some tags in a second and it passes. And the autograder works really bad. I do not know where I fail but I failed all the questions. A peer grader would be nice for the final project.

Thank you for you time and for everything you did.

As an introduction, I did not find that there's need to talk about the hosting and the other things related to this topic. It would be better if the instructor went deeper into the HTML5.

The teacher is excellent.

This is excellent but poor introduction to HTML.

The course, which is part of specialization should be much more detailed. With much more axamples. I think it is not worth 49$.

This course was clearly not ready. The autograder for the final project was.. a complete fail. It was not a fun experience trying to change around my code to figure out what the autograder wanted.

The lectures and assignments questions are more about the history of the internet and HTML. although I've finished the course but it wasn't as good as i thought.

Extremely basic, yet some of the concepts and their applications weren't well explained in the videos. I found the accompanying text to be dense and unclear.

Not very clear in some parts and the videos stopping for that style of questioning is annoying. The optional reading was much more useful than the required.

hi! its good . done till week # 2, but still there is no coding lesson ! Are there coding lessons? pls tell me

Didnt like a lot of theory and less coding, when it comes to coding, you have to dig yourself for data, so so

Unlike the HTML course which precedes it, this course was lacking information and structure.

too much theory instead of practice. Get bored pretty quickly. Might try another course

Too little coding and too many talking.

It's better to learn HTML 5 with youtube videos.

its a bit boring and too much not useful stuff is there in videos about history etec

The Courses could be more practical oriented rather than theory and theory.

this course was not helpful on focusing on things that actually matter.

It was very informative for website developers in beginners.

A lot of useless information and nothing really special

I do not want to continue this course anymore. Sorry.

i did not get my course completion certificate yet

Could be better spread out over a longer duration.

clear teaching but too much basilar introduction