1

G

.

-

.

R

V

V

p

G

G

.

F

G

When I started this course, my only experience with HTML was <b> bold</b>, <i> italic</i>, and <u>underline</u>. After this course I have a much clearer understanding of what HTML is, and how it works, and I am able to now use it to a much greater extent than I was before.

The professor did an excellent job of explaining most things, but I did find that on occasion I had to stop the video and go back several times to understand what she'd said or to take notes, despite having slowed the video down as much as possible. (In my opinion, one should be able to slow the video down more than is currently possible, especially for those for whom English is not their native tongue.) With me, it wasn't that I didn't understand what she said so much as I didn't have time to take in what she meant before she'd gone on to something else.

I understand that Coursera is able to do what it does because of its method, which is basically independent study; one watches the videos, and reads whatever resources are listed, and goes on from there. If there is a question, it is not the professor in the videos that the question is asked of, but people hired as "teaching aides". These are the people (other than fellow students) who answer your questions, and they do not always answer in a 'timely' fashion. While this method works well for some people, I am quite sure there are others unable to learn with this method, especially if the subject turns out to be a more complicated, intensive one. Some people need to have a little more than just videos which they can only repeat over and over with the same information, hoping to learn something new from it.

The only other thing I have a problem with is the lack of oversight/security. There's no way of knowing if the person who 'earns' a certificate is the person they claim to be, or if they earned the scores given.

All in all, I think Coursera is a great tool, and well worth the low prices charged; I am sure there are plenty of courses still remaining (after the 'purge') that I would love to take.

The course was great. If you read all the information, watch the lectures, read up on the information again, including the small things that you didn't quite get, you are actually at the end of class ready to make a decent HTML5 webpage. The information Collen introduces for us is important and she is to the point. And as she stresses herself, it is important to play around with HTML while you are learning it. That said, there is a reason the class gets 4 and not more stars. There are spelling mistakes on the slides she uses. Some she mentions and others she does not. I don't mind a word or two being misspelled, but when code is missing it is a little more serious. Why? Because we write down the slides, and if we are not careful, and we don't remember everything after a long period away from HTML, those slides with HTML code where things are missing is not a helper. There is also some contradiction between what her slides say and the book she recommends. That one you will find out when you are taking a quiz and don't know the answer, because you have two authorities telling you conflicting information. The quizzes have some mistakes in them, which means if you are like me and want to get a 100% score, that test will have to taken a few times. I see students have reacted on this for at least a year, but this is not corrected. It might be difficult now that everything is in place and can't be changed, but one could certainly give a heads up notice. Point being, going over all the slides and all before the course was put online, was not done. The last part I want to mention is that the final project is too easy. Much more assignments could have been given in this part. I mean, we are here to learn. And the questions which are mostly yes and no questions your peers, which are correcting the final project can't detail, means you can pass with flying colors without knowing HTML very good. But all in all, it is definitely worth 4 stars.

'Introduction to HTML5' course is a very general introduction to HTML5 for beginners. The professor doesn't assume you know anything about Web development or even how files are uploaded to a host website. The course covers a brief history of the Web, basic HTML5 elements, URL terminology, Accessibility, Semantics, and basic FTP & Web hosting software like C-Panel. Forms and other advanced topics are not covered.

The class is presented in a laid back style and uses non-technical language which is easy to understand. The quality of the video and audio are excellent. Supplemental books (pdf) and links to Youtube videos are provided and are useful.

The duration of some of the lectures seemed too long, even when using 2X playback speed. With some of the quizzes, the professor expected you to read her mind and were worded in a subjective manner.

The Accessibility section seemed a little too preachy for me. Also, the final project was convoluted and the instructions were vague. The final project really ended up being a 9 or 10 question quiz that gave you hints on how to code the final project.

In summary, take this course if you are a complete beginner. Otherwise, you won't learn much if you have more than 2 months of experience in front end Web development.

I thought this course, for the most part, was very thorough. I feel confident that I can create an HTML file. However, I wish the instructor would have spent less time on validating the code and more time on uploading the html file online. When I tried to use cyberduck, it was a little different than what the instructor showed. That made me feel a bit frustrated. I basically kinda had to teach myself how to put the html file on the web (so that the url started with http instead of file:///). Because I found that part to be the most difficult part of the course, I wish the final project required you to put it on the web for the public to see instead of just submitting your html file. I was very proud of myself when I figured out how to do this and I am glad that I took an extra step and tried to figure this out even though it's not required. Overall, I thought the course was pretty thorough and and easy to follow. I like the Coursera courses through the University of Michigan and this one did not disappoint. I don't love the University of Michigan (I went to ND for undergrad :) go Irish) but I have a lot of respect and appreciation for their Coursera courses.

Overall, I think this is a pretty good course. It is specifically geared for complete newbies, and due to peer grading, it does feel like a virtual classroom environment.

I docked a point because I felt that there are some quirks. The lectures themselves are fine -- however, I don't think the quizzes and projects match up completely with the lecture material. Some things, you are just expected to know by reading the online textbook and are thus not taught them in the lectures. The same pitfall I found in offline courses, which I feel is a bit unnecessary in online courses which don't have the same time constraints vs. the amount of material that has to be covered. But I'd hate to end this review on a bad note, because I really liked the course. It had a very positive and encouraging vibe, Dr. van Lent was very nice, friendly, and very clear in her lectures. She broke down CODE of all things into easily understood ideas. The chunks of material per week were just the right amounts to be encouraging and informative at the same time. I am registered for her CSS course and look forward to learning more from her!

I'd give it a 3.5, but it's not possible so I'm leaning more towards a 4 than a 3.

The most positive thing about the course was Prof. van Lent who really knows her stuff. She also has a calm, soothing manner of explaining things and moves with it at the right pace.

The content was easy to follow and quizzes were useful. Final assignment was messed up and they really should fix that, but the additional eight questions were basically a transcript of the code itself, and if you did your own code, you shouldn't have had any problem distinguishing the bad code from the good one. Extra stuff for those who successfully finished the course was a nice touch.

The real downside of it all was the 'staff'. I got my question answered nine days after I posted it, when I had already finished. I've also seen some rude and condescending yet sparse answers to other students. Similar (but worse) things happen in CSS3 course as well. I don't know who those people are and how they got their jobs, but they should be replaced. Or sent to professional conduct and time management class.

I would have given this course 5 stars if not for the final exam, which is to look at a jpeg and then write code to make a web page look exactly like the jpeg. The issue is that there are many ways to get a page to look like the image and you will still fail the exam. The course creators have realized this and you now have supporting questions that you can pass the course on even if your page code is not validated as correct. In my opinion there are so many better ways this final exam could have been handled, for instance i would have like to have seen a few more questions in the exam, and once passed you could see a forum area open up for us all to paste our code in or link to a page where we could discuss with teachers and moderators etc. personally I believe that sort of approach would add more value.

The above being said the content of the course is excellent for beginners with an eye opening focus on accessibility and good content on the DOM structure. The course will provide you with a good set of tools to get a basic page up on the internet.

I enjoyed the instructor's style, information, and pace.

While there was discussion up front regarding "coding along with me during the lecture video" there was never a moment when I felt like the instructor set up or encouraged an actual simultaneous project or assignment during the lectures. It's sort of left up to the student to figure out when and how they will jump into things. I would have enjoyed a hand being reached out in that manner.

I do think I learned more just doing the reading.

I thought there were several quiz questions that were worded or coded quite unfamiliarly. After paying close attention to a lecture video, doing all the readings, and even practicing, it is very frustrating to go through a quiz question where the question material is completely unfamiliar.

I enjoyed the challenge of the final project, and was proud of finishing it with perfect marks. The instructor's candidness and encouragement was a big factor in that.

So far I really like the structure and pedagogical paradigm of this course. The video lectures are also quite good, although I do wonder if there should be just a few more visual examples for some of the more "theoretical" content in some of the video lectures (ideally very quick and visually clear). It is noted that some examples of this nature are already present, and they are appreciated. The main reason the course is just shy of perfect for me is that it is just a little bit rough around the edges: A few of the videos and at least 1 quiz needs to be updated, and better integration of and reminders for readings are needed. Right now all the readings for the first 2 weeks are just dumped at the beginning of week 1 with nearly no context, and then not mentioned again even though questions about the reading appear on the quiz!

Overall very good, just needs a tune-up.

Good intro to HTML5. I rated it 4 stars because I feel the instructor spent too much time on accessibility and validation. Although important, 1 video might have been enough. As a web designer/developer I worked for several major international companies and accessibility/validation was never a high priority with them. I had to go to the mat at times to get them to change their standards. When the instructor did discuss accessibility, she should have provided examples of what a reader looks like and how they are used.

Also, there were several quiz questions about the info in some of the OPTIONAL readings. If it is optional, they should not have been included in the quizzes.

The final test HTML should have included a simple table and not the <display> tag. The display tag is rarely used, yet tables are very important.

I guess I would do this again, eh?

I really enjoyed the emphasis on designing websites with accessibility to individuals with certain challenges and some of the historical context of html.

I felt the coding was really just pushed at the end. Another course I took had coding from the start. I think it helps you learn a bit more by requiring coding tests throughout.

Colleen van Lent is a very good likable teacher.

The peer review system is quite flawed. I received three failing grades for a near flawless project, as I just resubmitted it without changes and three more peers gave me basically a 10/10 grade. Quite unprofessional and annoying, as students can sandbag your grade at will. I hope you get a fair student grading.

A good basic course I guess.