good

good

cool

good

Good

Good

GOOD

good

Good

Good

good

Good

Good

yes

No

ok

x

While I think this course was built with good intentions and good ideas, there's a fundamental imbalance between the amount of time and energy students spend executing the exercises, which are primarily research based, and the results students have to show for those exercises. Week 5 felt like a lot of work especially, and ultimately also felt like wasted effort - there is a very insufficient amount of guidance in creating the audit chart, while simultaneously not nearly enough time is spent reviewing it. (For example, the exemplar project uses fictional companies and websites for its audit, but does not explain that beforehand, or at least did not do so in a way that was clear to me at the time. Not enough time is spent on comparing the features of real-world websites to learn what key features and pain points students should actually be looking out for when doing their audit. The concept is useful, but for it to be the end of the course feels really frustrating, and poorly executed on. Crazy eights was a fun, welcome break, but for our first actual hands-on exercise came way too late, and does not come alongside sufficient executable problem statements - I had to search for a problem statement generator of my own.

While this was the least exciting portion of the course, it was very necessary. This was like a sequel to the introduction. You will not begin working on prototypes or even wireframing. You will not begin working on actual designs. It's just mostly more definitions and a lot of Google reminding you over and over again that everyone has bias. While this is true, it feels a little condescending and off-putting. Why aren't we told that some bias is healthy? Does Google understand that we all live different experiences that shape us into the individuals we are? I suppose so, but why doesn't Google recognize, or mention, that our differences are often times what makes our teams more diverse and inclusive? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it's not really much of a big deal. You got yourself here, so go ahead and trust yourself, no matter what anyone anywhere tells you, and just keep pushing forward till you finish.

I enjoyed learning research concepts and after completing the course it felt rewarding however as a self-paced learner, you cannot guage how well you are doing since everything is peer reviewed. Your peers are not UX experts and most of the time by default I get full marks with no comments. I would give it higher stars if there was an expert who could evaluate your progress. The interview part was interesting however you are literally thrown into the deep end with having to interview people with no guide or full purpose. As a student it is nigh on impossible to incentivise random people who wants to do an interview with you apart from your friends or family. The course talks about inclusivity and different personality types yet there are people (who have raised in the discussion) that they have anxiety from doing these activities which the teacher has not taken into consideration.

Solid knowledge of the first three steps of Design Thinking, especially of the first (empathize) and third (ideate) phases. However, I feel there is no guidance or actual feedback on what I am doing right or wrong with the assignments. Peer review is a great way to get feedback and thoughts from fellow co-students but I didn't get any feedback on most of my assignments. I also noticed that most of the assignments I reviewed had spelling mistakes and somewhat copied information from the reports presented right before each module. Also deadlines seem quite short for someone working full time or someone who has many other duties, for instance it took me a week to finish up the CoffeeHouse audit. Overall I am very satisfied with the knowledge, the course design and the assigments; I just feel I digest knowledge but apply it in the dark for the assignments.

Excellent course. Takes you through the UX process at the best companies. The only issues that bothered me were this - 1. I couldn't get 100% just because I hadn't interviewed a disabled person for the personas. I simply couldn't find anyone who was disabled and fit the target audience and I did not want to make up something just for the sake of the assignment. 2. The material in the course goes out of its way to make everyone in the examples Gender fluid. I understand Google has to "represent" and be politically correct but I couldn't overlook how it was bending over backwards for this. Outside of US and Europe people still arent used to Gender neutral language and it put me off the course everytime. Though I have nothing against their beleifs but dont try to shove it in our throats.

While the content is solid, I cannot give more than 3 starts for the very poor peer graded review process. The course is flooded with users that unless you actively campaign you will not obtain a fair review - worst of all, you have many people "trolling" just to get the certification. There really should be some kind of fact check system / or a way to bubble up issues that happen when you revieice a grade that fails you. At the end of the day the goal is to learn and embrace feedback, but if you give someone a less than passing with no feedback and no way to follow up, it leaves the student feeling confused, and questioning the integrity of the other students and their intentions on the site. I hope that this issue can be resolved in the future through an AI grading system instead.