ok

Jw

ok

ex

1

n

.

.

U

.

Great course, however I think the instructions could be improved in several areas where things are inconsistent.

In the wireframing stage, the Google instructor is creating iterations of a homepage or landing page screen. Then, when you actually switch to the assignment for your portfolio, you're required to create a flow between multiple screens. It'd be better to know this ahead of time so students could prepare or create wireframes of those screens at the same time they're creating the homepage wireframes.

In the low-fidelity prototype assignment at the end of Week 3, the submission process could be improved. I created a 10-screen prototype and connected far more nodes than the course required, making a fairly functional app. I had to resubmit three times because other students didn't understand how to operate Figma and were rushing through the reviews. This was after I tested the link/prototype several times and had family test it as well before submitting it.

Great section, I think we covered Biases already in one of the other courses within the certification program so for me that was a repeat. Also, more focus on maybe the structure of building a lo fidelity prototype from very beginning to end (starting from a sign in page to a final). Learning the toolbox and capabilities within Figma needs to be more in depth rather than adding a section on biases and deceptive patterns. The section coursework should be kept to focusing solely on lo fidelity wireframes and prototypes. It dilutes and distracts from focusing on learning the essential tool of Figma. First assignment, right away should be to copy exactly, a lo fidelity app and doing it bit by bit thru instruction then we should use our portfolio project and do another. Replication projects are helpful. This one is a bit broad for a first time project and for a beginner. Overall it's great to be doing the UI part of the course.

This course was hard work but very educational. I really enjoy the way Google structures their learning. One thing that sticks out to me is the very obvious commitment to diversity that Google has worked hard to include here, but specifically leaves out any mention of or representation of people with different body types. Every single person who taught, or was interviewed, and every single character description was of the same body type, without exception. They might be different genders, or ethnicities, or abilities, but same slim-average body. I'm used to being excluded but it really stings when an organization is making such a big deal about diversity and then specifically excludes me - it feels like including me is so shameful to the creators that they can't even imagine people like me existing or using their product.

Overall, I really enjoyed the course. However, I had a more favorable experience with the older version of the course where practical tasks were involved. I was disappointed when the update erased my progress just as I was about to finish and move on to Course 4. The newer update’s shift to purely theoretical content and that was a bit demotivating...it took me extra time to complete the course. It’s simply my personal preference, but I found the previous version more engaging. I apologize if I come across too direct, but the sudden changes were frustrating for me. Nevertheless, I'm infinitely grateful for this opportunity to study at my own pace from home and I will definitely continue with the course. Kind regards.

Getting into the business of making deliverables was really satisfying and solidified my interest in the field. What is really lacking from the course is actual human beings. The discussion forums are just people posting their links and asking for reviews, and no one replies back when you reply to their posts. It's really disheartening.

Even if there were peer discussion, I'd still miss the ability to ask a question of someone actually in the field. There should be TAs or mods who are not students on our level. It's hard to feel confident with material when you can't ask a question of anyone with authority on the subject matter!

This teaches very good baseline material that all designers should know. However, I feel like in the current work force and through my research some things could be streamlined and other things should have more effort put into them so that your portfolio really shines. For those reading this, DO NOT use the google template stuff as your actual portfolio!! Put in the effort to make your own presentations and put more effort into things such as your wireframes and prototypes so that when you get to the actual high fidelity prototype you have less work to do and your that much closer to a fully realized product.

The class was great, but peer graded activities are not always effective. A peer took points off my grade for the customer requested oval buttons instead of rectangles the peer said they like. Regardless, the button fit the activity requirements and no points should have been deducted!

The comment was also not considering biases so maybe they skipped those classes. It was "yo, bro...." whereas I am a female and I find the assumption of a "bro"-related, male workforce and classroom is completely disrespectful!

This course was excellent in helping to build actual skills for building wireframes and low-fidelity prototypes.

My only issue is the peer-graded assignments, sometimes there is no feedback from the peer who grades the assignment. This is not very helpful in situations where the assignment isn't as high a mark as you would like. It makes it difficult to know what you need to change in the assignment. A good solution would be to require the "peer" to give feedback in order to complete the assessment.

Again, I learned many useful things, for which I am grateful. The lecturer is very nice and it is very easy to learn from her. What I'm voting for with 4 stars is that the examples she gives during the video are different from what the students have to do next, and that confuses them and wastes their time. This is especially true of the big picture storyboard. I think that when some part of the material will then be evaluated, it should be taught correctly from the very beginning.

I think the times allotted for the assignments on Figma are VERY underestimated and should be updated to reflect the amount of time it should take to develop the prototypes in prototype. The times should be updated for creating the wireframes and drawing them in Figma and then connecting the frames. There are lots of Figma tutorials but it would be helpful to show commonly made mistakes in Figma and best practices or at least links to those resources.

This course was really good and offers a good high level overview of the concepts covered in the course. I do wish that each course dug deeper into the concepts more than they actually do. I will continue to go down this road of UX Design regardless because the courses are very interesting, easy to understand and are getting me on the right track of how to look for the information that I want/need to pursue this as a career.

I loved categorization exercises, I consider that type of exercise always helps me to understand better the UX Design role as well the real struggles of users. I was super excited about using Figma for the first time, was super pro!!

Apart from that, I would like to receive feedback from my peers, but they usually don't do that, so it would be a good habit that each one can incorporate.

This course itself is very useful and easy to understand. However, when I turned in my prototypes, I got an unfair grade from the peer review. Due to that, I needed to submit my work again to get full credit from somebody else.

It would be very nice if we can report it when we get grades that seem unfair, and let professionals/instructors check assignments.

Thank you!