Great course

fascinating！

Apasionante!

Great stuff!

Nice course

Best Course

非常不错的设计之初

Awesome!

很好的课程，喜欢

awesome

Awesome

Great~

great!

Great!

Great

GREAT

Good

I

e

Course is good, but materials should be subject of review - link to the chi-squared table has been broken, and no one replaced it for years. I see a lot of posts on forum about it without any actions from mentors. Thanks to kind people who was able to find a replacement and share it on the forum.

And, as last point, which is important - if no students in paralel with you on the course within same timeline, reviews for your submissions will be delayed, what is wrong from student perspective. It is very clear expecially for UX students. In such case deadlines should be updated automatically if submission has been done in time.

Great overview of a lot of design topics! Like Scott himself says, this is a great starting point for someone who is not a designer himself. Not sure if it is feasible, but some of the topics could be more detailed. Yes - Scott does mention books that can be referred for further reading. But if the course could include pull-outs / key chapters from those books - it could be very useful as I am not sure how many of us will get a chance to go through complete books.

Overall - loved the exposure. Especially enjoyed the part on designing experiments.

This is a great course with tons of valuable info. The peer-review projects are very hands-on, and you learn a lot by doing that. However, I wish there were more explanations for certain things (for example, for the experiments section) - or at least, more resources to get further info. Also, for Assignment 3, it would have been very helpful to have the answer key, since there is some confusion around some of the answers.

Overall the information and exercises were good. The introduction to A/B testing was great and provides a good base layer of knowledge for the experimenting and analysis section of the IxD program. I would say that the week 3 assignment was frustrating as a grader since the rubric seemed to ask for very specific answers when the questions allowed for broader interpretation.

The exercises are very confusing to submit and to rate (peer rate review, sometimes too long questions and you lot the commitment). I would like that the teacher had a much linear methodology through the Specialization, in many moments it feels like he´s losing the objectivity.

It would be nice to reinforce the main concepts, instead of doing mathematic equations...

The Chi Square lecture was hard to follow. I took elementary statistics in college 20 years ago and got an A, but the lecture jumped and skipped explaining things. the video seemed to have been edited when Scott was about to explain something. Sometimes he didn't really explain somethings. The other lectures were very helpful and have helped me already.