me gusto mucho la sección de estilos arquitectónicos y diagrama de componentes, no fue claro la parte de atributos de calidad y Metodo ATAM , para análisis de disemio

This course is good enough. However, It is remarkable important to support each course of this specialization up to date

Material is good. Very useful course for IT practitioner. However some assignment could have been written clearer

Best course to know basics of software architecture

Has good initial view on the architecture concepts

Very helpful course

Very Good Course

Very GOood

best

It's fine. I was expecting more about how to come up with the internal design of an applcation, but the grand-scheme examples are good to consider.

I still have some gripes, though:

The instructions for assignment 3.1 are very misleading. It says you need to make a component diagram of an application, then says to install Android Studio and look over an app's code, which implies you have to make a diagram of the Android app. I had been working on it for an hour before I noticed the real instructions at the very bottom of the page, which do not actually require you to run the app or really look at the source code at all; the whole app is just one single component in the diagram. I could understand making it optional or recommended, but please just make the instructions say what to do. The 3.1.5 video doesn't show examples of <<uses>> arrows, and doesn't show a label for a link between nodes, but the grading rubric for assignment 3.2 requires both of those. I don't think the definition of a sensitivity point makes sense. The solution to the last assignment doesn't say which category each scenario should have been.

The website reloaded itself while I was grading an assignment and lost all of my radio button choices. I was more than halfway done with it. It also reloaded while I was writing this review.

I am a bit disappointed. I did not mean, that the course is not useful, but most of the material is blurred, incoherent, out of the blue, and not presented well. Kruchten's 4+1 View has bad naming, blurry explanations, needs real examples. I asked for clarifications about the material on the forum for Week 2 six times (without answers). You had better check ATAM in the original papers (30+ pages) and Quality Attributes are foggy (Week 3). The solution for the last capstone assignment does not cover half of the assignment (Week 4). There are testing questions for not presented terms. But, the science that is behind the course (Kruchten's Views, UML, ATAM, Architecture types) are very useful, so for me (who never heard of half of them) taking the course worth it. I mean, the course showed me what needs to understand for becoming a better programmer.

Some of the links didn't work. When installing the application I asked for help to solve problems, I did not receive a response. The examples of using the technique from module 4 were not sufficient to complete the task. Judging by the projects that I had to check, many people did not understand how to move from scenario to a utility tree. A lot of theory and terms without explanation of how this knowledge will be useful in practice. Only the first model has been worked out in detail (with questions during the video, tasks for self-fulfillment). Modules 2 and 3 are just a set of videos about terms. Tests do not show a practical understanding of the topic, but only how well the student remembered the terms. The course is good for getting acquainted with terminology, with UML diagrams. For real architectural design, it gives very little.

The course is good if you have zero knowledge of Software Architecture and want to learn the basic concepts and language. The assignments, however, are a complete joke. No example is given on how to complete an assignment, so the first attempt is just garbage. Then, you learn what was asked of you by reviewing other people's assignment and reading the grade scale, and submit a revised attempt. There's lots of plagiarism too.

Theory and useless UML. Not recommended for experienced specialists. Academic approach and no value

No se dan los suficientes ejemplos para facilitar la asimilación de la materia.

have very good teachers but i was expecting cloud or serverless architecures.

最後のCapStone課題が非常にひどい。このコースを受講する人へのアドバイスだが、最後のCapStone課題で、ピアレビューの枠を使い切らないこと！ピアレビューで他の受講生のまともな回答を参考にできないと、詰む可能性があります。

インプットが漠然としすぎており、課題に対応するレクチャーの内容も不十分なため、成果物としてどういうものを作ればいいのかほとんど理解できないのである。

実際に他の受講生のピアレビューをした感じでは、5人中4人はファイルを添付していないか、全く関係のないファイルを添付しているかのどちらかだ。つまり、受講生の大半が理解できない課題内容だということだ。この専門講座全体を通してそういう傾向はあったが、この課題ではそれが特に顕著だった。そういう不誠実な人たちが他人のピアレビューで低い点を付けるという地獄のような状況になっている。

私が最初に作った成果物はかなり見当違いな内容だったかもしれないが、自分なりに頑張って作ったものが、上記のような不誠実な受講生に不合格点を付けられたと思うとモチベーションを完全に失いそうになった。

なにしろレビュー観点が全く無視されて0点を付けられることが多いのだ。「内容がmake senseであるか」という観点で0点を付けられるのは（大半の受講生にそれを判断できるとは思えないものの）仕方ないが、「4択のうちどれに当てはまるか書いているか」で0点を付けられるのは意味不明だ。誠実にレビューされているとは言い難く、意味不明な不合格を食らうことが多い。実際、自分ではもうこれ以上のものは作れないという回答を作って、何度も同じファイルをアップロードすることでなんとか合格点を超えることが出来た。

This course is easy. The part that is actually about the different software architectures is interesting, but not too deep. The course does not prepare you for final capstone assignment.

Basic, should have had more practice and real world examples

The course is as bad as the previous one: too abstract material with explanation on analogies instead of real software. Unclear assignments, where a 3-minute video explains to you how to draw a complex UML diagram. No control of your knowledge or understanding. Instead of some objective control, the assignments are reviewed by different learners, and you do not know: either your assignment is correct or a reviewer does not understand the material in the same way as you or the reviewer just marked your assignment as correct without reviewing. It is disastrous for such complex topic as "Software Architecture". A good example of level of nightmare is the recommendations on reviewing other learners' assignments in the final assignment of this course: the criteria is "Does it make sense for you? (Yes - 1 point, No - 0 points)" So, just avoid this course.

The content is great, but the overall structure and assignments are done poorly (2 assignments with pretty bad descriptions which are graded by other students it's a joke). Also, the speaker in the video just read the lines (very fast) which makes me feel that just reading a notes.pdf on my own would be enough without videos at all. I would never suggest anyone from my friends to take that course.

very bad

bullshit