Sangat mantab

good course!

Buen curso

Good.

Good!

good

good

good

good

The videos are objective, clear and interesting, I liked the extra sources too. The assignments have a good level for a introduction course. The peer reviews process are the only bad thing in fact about not only this course but in all coursera courses. Due the large number of people who doing the assignments, some people don't take it serious. While I was reading carefully my coleagues assigments and giving good an construtive feedback, I received poor qualitity reviews with short comentaries like "good", "no", "I like". I also got 0 in every single criteria in my last assignment from a study that clearly even did not opened my PDF. The peer reviews are definetily the most frustating part of the course.

I was disappointed by the lack of diverse representation of typeset designers. While I know the historical aspect is what it is, there were also a lot of current designers mentioned, and most mentioned were white men. This lack of diversity was extremely frustrating. Even in the assignments, not one typeset on the entire list was invented by a woman or gender nonconforming human, even though many of the typesets were created fairly recently. I learned so much - so otherwise I would have given a higher rating. It was just too obvious not to be distracting to me.

There should be an option to get a second round of opinion on peer reviews. Some users leave unreasonably low scores without leaving an explanation. Most times, users don't offer any feedback and just copy and paste random text off the internet.

Other than that the course was quite interesting. However, I would have appreciated a bit of a deeper coverage of general typography rules, as well as more structured notes and further reading material.

Everything went well there are plenty of amazing and mind opening ideas but i wish the typographic language was more easily explained and the assignments were simpler I struggled a bit with the work cause it took a while to understand . Thanks alot that had alot of new ideas

I learn that typography is much deeper than I thought but some of the theoretical explanations about how readable some typefaces are are subjective and it depends on each individual or what they are used to.

did not like peer graded way to grade the creative assignments - people have very different backgrounds and their feedback is sometimes pure nonsense as they miss the metaphors or lack some basic integrity

Basic overview of Typographical ideas, terms and so forth. A bit short and not very technical, but playing with Type as an integral part of design was really fun and inspirational.

peer grade review takes a lot of time and even when i have submitted the assignment before time its not being reviewed.

In the first 2 weeks there was no hands-on project, literally nothing exciting just dry material.

Would have welcomed more or longer lectures, and more variety in the assignments.

Great Course For just the introduction

i enjoyed it

too boring

nice

I am following the Specialization in Graphic Design, so I was expecting in-depth theory about typography, but the course barely expands on the theory given in the "Fundamentals of Graphic Design" course, so it is indeed an introduction. Do not expect more.

Overall, the content is good and the instructor provides some examples, which I apreciate, but it feels too rushed. Sometimes they simply mention concepts not going into any depth, nor showing enough practical examples, making it difficult to grasp.

On the other hand, the peer review system is just absolutly terrible and probably the worst part of all these courses. The system just does not work. And it's simply not possible to improve or learn without proper feedback on assignments.

Unfortunately there are just too many students who don't take it seriously and not only don't follow the intructions for the assignments but also don't review correctly. I have seen other people complain about this so I wish CalArts would act on it and did something to improve the peer-review system or provided an alternative grading system altogether.

Not engaging, seemed to drag on forever.